"I Don't Have to Prove a Negative"

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would just for fun if I could. I can't think of an example of a negative assertion which would be unquestionable.

What about the bold one because it seems to lead to there is at least one, which can't be questioned, namely that you in effect can't.

 

[ratiocinator]

Fair enough. Let's change the woman in a red dress to a man hunting in a red dress. Still to ordinary? How about a coyote in a red dress. I think either of these would qualify as greater than ordinary. What then?

Your describing a sliding scale here, and that's exactly how one should approach the credence one should assign to something. Mathematically Bayes' theorem can be stated as:

Where:
H - hypothesis
E - evidence.
prob( A ) - probability of A.
prob( A | B ) - Portability of A given B.

The important thing to note is the importance of prob( H ), the 'prior' probably we assign to the hypothesis without the evidence. This will get progressively smaller in your examples, thus requiring 'better' evidence, i.e. the ratio of the probability of the evidence given the hypothesis is true, to the probability of it regardless of the truth of the hypothesis.

Formula images rendered by QuickLaTeX.​

 

[PureX]

We can prove a negative assertion so long as we can clearly define the criteria for a possible positive.

Example: There are no numbers in the set of symbols we use as our alphabet.

The possibilities are clearly defined, and the area of inquisition is fully accessible. The validity of the negative assertion can therefor be ascertained.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your describing a sliding scale here, and that's exactly how one should approach the credence one should assign to something. Mathematically Bayes' theorem can be stated as:

Where:
H - hypothesis
E - evidence.
prob( A ) - probability of A.
prob( A | B ) - Portability of A given B.

The important thing to note is the importance of prob( H ), the 'prior' probably we assign to the hypothesis without the evidence. This will get progressively smaller in your examples, thus requiring 'better' evidence, i.e. the ratio of the probability of the evidence given the hypothesis is true, to the probability of it regardless of the truth of the hypothesis.

Formula images rendered by QuickLaTeX.​

Yeah, for the objective in some sense. But all of the everyday world is not objective, even if you treat it as natural.

 

[bobhikes]

I see some variation of this phrase, "I don't have to prove a negative" posted here often, and I find it to be nothing short of a copout.

As I see it, it's pretty simple: If you make a claim, positive or negative, the onus is on you to provide evidence to support that claim, otherwise your claim can easily be dismissed by others.

Claim: "God exists." The onus is on the person making the claim to provide evidence for the existence of God.

Claim: "No gods exist." The onus is on the person making the claim to provide evidence that no gods exist.

And as for the second, "I see no evidence to support the existence of any gods" is not evidence. Before 1930, not a single person saw evidence to support the existence of Pluto. Does that mean it came into existence in 1930? Eris in 2005? So before 1930, would the claim, "There are no [dwarf] planets orbiting the sun beyond Neptune" have been valid?

If you make a claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence of that claim if you want that claim to be taken seriously by others.

Disagree? State your case below.

You don't have to prove a negative. Look to Math, you say you had 5 apples but there is just 1 on the table in front of us. You told me your son took 4. All I see and care about is the One on the table. I am not going to negotiate for the missing 4. Even in Written word, "I do not know the answer", "I can not tell you", "Sorry no". All are decisive and yield no debate.

However; In debate which is an exchange of ideas it is used as a cop out. You don't have to debate, you choose to and if you are going to simply discredit something with one line there is no point to the debate.

 

[Rival]

And this is where we are going to disagree, perhaps.

I can easily say someone is wrong about declaring the existence of a god because of the path they have used to establish the existence of this god and this is not specific to gods. It works like this for almost everything.

This sounds like the genetic fallacy to me.

'Your conclusion is wrong because the path you took to get there is faulty.'

 

[Debater Slayer]

I see some variation of this phrase, "I don't have to prove a negative" posted here often, and I find it to be nothing short of a copout.

As I see it, it's pretty simple: If you make a claim, positive or negative, the onus is on you to provide evidence to support that claim, otherwise your claim can easily be dismissed by others.

Claim: "God exists." The onus is on the person making the claim to provide evidence for the existence of God.

Claim: "No gods exist." The onus is on the person making the claim to provide evidence that no gods exist.

And as for the second, "I see no evidence to support the existence of any gods" is not evidence. Before 1930, not a single person saw evidence to support the existence of Pluto. Does that mean it came into existence in 1930? Eris in 2005? So before 1930, would the claim, "There are no [dwarf] planets orbiting the sun beyond Neptune" have been valid?

If you make a claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence of that claim if you want that claim to be taken seriously by others.

Disagree? State your case below.

I agree there's a difference between "there's no evidence for a god" and "no god exists." In practice, though, the margin of error is so small as to be negligible given an absence of evidence. I have no evidence that megalodons don't exist in an undiscovered region in the lowest depths of the ocean, but the absence of evidence effectively leads me to live my life exactly as if I were absolutely sure they didn't exist.

That said, when it comes to others' belief in a god or gods, I don't care at all to try to "refute" or dislodge their theism. I care far more about values and how people treat others than whether they believe in a god or not. That's their business, and I can see how certain personal experiences could reasonably lead to theism.

 

[SalixIncendium]

You don't have to prove a negative. Look to Math, you say you had 5 apples but there is just 1 on the table in front of us. You told me your son took 4. All I see and care about is the One on the table. I am not going to negotiate for the missing 4. Even in Written word, "I do not know the answer", "I can not tell you", "Sorry no". All are decisive and yield no debate.

If you make a claim that there were never 5 apples on the table, you are making an assertion about the missing 4, therefore the onus is on you to provide evidence that there were never 5 apples on the table.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Some of you are morphing this into a debate about providing evidence for the existence/non-existence of gods. I was using gods as an example, but the true intent of the thread was providing evidence for positive/negative claims.

 

[PureX]

I agree there's a difference between "there's no evidence for a god" and "no god exists."

Both are patently false. But the real problem is that neither assertion is being properly articulated. Which leaves the reader to make up all the missing information for themselves, and thereby arrive at any number of different conclusions.

In practice, though, the margin of error is so small as to be negligible given an absence of evidence.

There is no absence of evidence. There is an absence of clearly articulated evidence. These are not the same things at all.

I have no evidence that megalodons don't exist in an undiscovered region in the lowest depths of the ocean, but the absence of evidence effectively leads me to live my life exactly as if I were absolutely sure they didn't exist.

That said, when it comes to others' belief in a god or gods, I don't care at all to try to "refute" or dislodge their theism. I care far more about values and how people treat others than whether they believe in a god or not. That's their business, and I can see how certain personal experiences could reasonably lead to theism.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Both are patently false.

There is no absence of evidence. There is an absence of clearly articulated evidence. These are not the same things at all.

I disagree, personally, but as I said, I don't care whether someone perceives any given phenomenon or experience as evidence for a god. As long as they don't try to impose their belief on others, I see it as an entirely personal matter.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Some of you are morphing this into a debate about providing evidence for the existence/non-existence of gods. I was using gods as an example, but the true intent of the thread was providing evidence for positive/negative claims.

Well, the standard of a negative is the variants of: You are wrong, you have made a false claim oe any other variants which can include irrelevant, meaningless, useless and so on.
The problem is in part that postives and negatives are first person cognitive internal sensory experiences and have no objective external sensory experiences. And that is in some sense connected to the fallacy of reification.
In an even more everyday sense stupid and so on can also happen.

 

[ratiocinator]

There is no absence of evidence. There is an absence of clearly articulated evidence.

This makes no sense at all. If there is no absence of evidence, why can't anybody articulate it, and if they can't, how would anybody (yourself included) know it existed?

 

[Koldo]

If you are walking alone in the woods and see a woman in a red dress, and you left the woods to tell someone about the woman in the red dress, and they tell you that she doesn't exist, and you take that person back to the woods to show them, but she is no longer there, would that person be correct in declaring the woman in the red dress does not exist?

Nope. But the existence of women wearing red dresses is not being grounded in random subjective experiences, or is it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nope. But the existence of women wearing red dresses is not being grounded in random subjective experiences, or is it?

Depends on if the woman used true objective scientific evidence to choose to wear a red dress or not.

 

[Audie]

Both are patently false. But the real problem is that neither assertion is being properly articulated. Which leaves the reader to make up all the missing information for themselves, and thereby arrive at any number of different conclusions.

There is no absence of evidence. There is an absence of clearly articulated evidence. These are not the same things at all.

Let's see you articulate nothing with
nothing. Coordinate conjunctions, mayhap.

 

[Audie]

This makes no sense at all. If there is no absence of evidence, why can't anybody articulate it, and if they can't, how would anybody (yourself included) know it existed?

"Goodvand sufficient " is the aspect
of "god- evidence" always omitted.

Batboy's secret lab on the moon
Is evidenced by my mention of it.

A few more mentions and a vision. and
who knows.

 

[Stevicus]

Some of you are morphing this into a debate about providing evidence for the existence/non-existence of gods. I was using gods as an example, but the true intent of the thread was providing evidence for positive/negative claims.

What about negative claims about other things, such as conspiracies? If someone claims "there was no conspiracy to assassinate JFK" and that "Oswald acted alone," are they required to prove it, and what if they can't?

 

[Koldo]

This sounds like the genetic fallacy to me.

'Your conclusion is wrong because the path you took to get there is faulty.'

It is not necessarily the case that the conclusion is wrong, for it might be true, but rather that there is no proper basis for claiming that conclusion to be true.

 

[Audie]

It is not necessarily the case that the conclusion is wrong, for it might be true, but rather that there is no proper basis for claiming that conclusion to be true.

Wrong approach sure reduces chances
of success down to coincidnce.