If negative cannot be proved

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How opaque? The parameters need to be set, and quantifiable, or else we're just speculating, not proving.

Are you joking?

Edit: "set and quantifiable?" Are you seriously suggesting that I can't rule out the possibility that my town is under an opaque dome by pointing out that I can see the Sun unless I give a specific opacity for the dome that isn't there?

 

[exchemist]

How opaque? The parameters need to be set, and quantifiable, or else we're just speculating, not proving.

"Opaque" means "does not transmit visible light". i.e. not transparent or translucent.
the definition of opaque

 

[exchemist]

Are you joking?

Edit: "set and quantifiable?" Are you seriously suggesting that I can't rule out the possibility that my town is under an opaque dome by pointing out that I can see the Sun unless I give a specific opacity for the dome that isn't there?

He may not know the meaning of opaque. Some people wrongly think it is a synonym for translucent, I gather.

 

[sealchan]

then why get into such an irrational position in the first place?
Regards

I think the phrase "you can't prove a negative" is meant to indicate that you often can't find critical evidence to disprove a reasonable possibility. It is practical wisdom meant to curb unnecessary effort of thought. Most of the world is messy and not amenible to interpretation through straight-forward deductive logic. But there are cases where the negative can be proved because deductive logic (any kind of mathematics) where the rules of possibility are clearly defined prevails over the reality discussed.

But most of our practical lives are spent in a messier environment. We are constantly telling ourselves causal stories about why such and such did or did not happen. There we may vainly strive for proofs which experience tells us are too easily negated.

 

[exchemist]

I've actually heard it frequently here in America. But then, what nonsense to informed people have I not actually heard frequently here in America.

I expect we've got it here too. But the only context in which this lousy argument seems to come up is the existence or not of God, something most Brits don't get nearly so hot under the collar about as our transatlantic cousins.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

then why get into such an irrational position in the first place?
Regards

____________
Isn’t Atheism a world view without reasons and arguments?
Atheism people have a belief "God does not exist "
Is Atheism a claim to the nature of reality and the universe?
"There is nothing that atheism (on its own) claims is 'right.' "?
"Atheist can't be an Anti-theist & Anti-theist can't be an atheist"?
With new observations comes a new belief
It is very natural to believe

You can certainly prove negatives. Who told you that you can't?

 

[Sunstone]

I expect we've got it here too. But the only context in which this lousy argument seems to come up is the existence or not of God, something most Brits don't get nearly so hot under the collar about as our transatlantic cousins.

I'm curious: is logic or are any closely related subjects (such as "critical thinking") routinely taught below the university level there? Sometimes a bit of an introduction to the most common informal fallacies is taught here as part of a speech or public speaking course, or as part of a science course. But I'm unaware of any schools, apart from perhaps a few elite private schools, that actually go "full out" by dedicating an entire course, or two, to introducing students to logic, critical thinking, or any such subjects.

 

[columbus]

You can certainly prove negatives. Who told you that you can't?

Other religionists, oftentimes.
They don't usually use those words. But "You can't prove that my irrational beliefs, supported by implausible stories, aren't true." is kinda common.

Unfortunately, the attitude all too often informs other beliefs as well. You can't prove that Trump colluded with the Russians.
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Other religionists, oftentimes.
They don't usually use those words. But "You can't prove that my irrational beliefs, supported by implausible stories, aren't true." is kinda common.

I find it very interesting when people try to defend their beliefs this way because of what it implies.

Yes, we can't distinguish between a non-existent god and a god that exists but has no measurable impact on us whatsoever, but unless the believer is a deist, is the god they believe in one that's so irrelevant that nobody can tell whether it exists?

I feel like they haven't really thought their argument through.

 

[`mud]

Ahhh... the `negatives` of this world, since there aren't any `negatives` to prove,
not mathematically in reality. But...positives as 2+2=4.0000009 can be proven if one reduces the result to less than seven digits. But the result would never be less than zero. It would at that point be a negative amount, less than zero, that would not ever exist, only in imaginary mathematics.
Sooo...with some cheating with digits, negatives can never be proven.
Now...absence cannot be proven, can it ?
But...beliefs are forever positive, aren't they ?
Edit:
But someone has already offered an opposition to this word salad hasn't one ?
NuffStuff

 

[columbus]

I feel like they haven't really thought their argument through.

I think that they generally have, but don't have a better argument.
Tom

 

[PureX]

Are you joking?

Edit: "set and quantifiable?" Are you seriously suggesting that I can't rule out the possibility that my town is under an opaque dome by pointing out that I can see the Sun unless I give a specific opacity for the dome that isn't there?

Are you seriously claiming that your personal subjective observations are the equivalent of "proof"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think that they generally have, but don't have a better argument.
Tom

I don't know; they tend to act surprised when I list off other things that can't be proven not to exist (leprechauns, invisible dragons, etc.) and ask what makes their god more believable than these things they probably don't believe in thenselves.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you seriously claiming that your personal subjective observations are the equivalent of "proof"?

If you aren't going to answer my questions, I'm not going to answer yours.

 

[PureX]

"Opaque" means "does not transmit visible light". i.e. not transparent or translucent.
the definition of opaque

Thanks, I always get those terms mixed up. Nevertheless, the point stands. The only way to prove a negative is to clearly and precisely define the positive enough to reasonably ensure no further possibilities.

Let's take "Bigfoot" as an example. The only way to prove that such a creature does not exist on Earth is to define the creature clearly and precisely, and then examine the entire Earth closely enough to ensure that if one were there, it would not have been overlooked. Going for a walk in the woods and not seeing one is not proof. Going into the woods and seeing something that you think could have been one is not proof of it's existence. Other people's claims of having seen one is not proof of it's existence. Millions of people having never seen one is not proof that it does not exist. Nor are photographs, drawings, footprints, and so on, or the lack of these.

Proof requires that the phenomena observed fit a specific quantifiable criteria, and that the observations be quantifiable (reproducible) as well.

 

[PureX]

If you aren't going to answer my questions, I'm not going to answer yours.

Probably no point in carrying on the conversation, then, is there.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let's take "Bigfoot" as an example. The only way to prove that such a creature does not exist on Earth is to define the creature clearly and precisely, and then examine the entire Earth closely enough to ensure that if one were there, it would have been overlooked. Going for a walk in the woods and not seeing one is not proof. Going into the woods and seeing something that you think could have been one is not proof of it's existence. Other people's claims of having seen one is not proof of it's existence. Millions of people having never seen one is not proof that it does not exist. Nor are photographs, drawings, footprints, and so on, or the lack of these.

They aren't proof, but they are evidence that can inform a person's conclusions about whether Bigfoot is likely to exist or not.

 

[exchemist]

I'm curious: is logic or are any closely related subjects (such as "critical thinking") routinely taught below the university level there? Sometimes a bit of an introduction to the most common informal fallacies is taught here as part of a speech or public speaking course, or as part of a science course. But I'm unaware of any schools, apart from perhaps a few elite private schools, that actually go "full out" by dedicating an entire course, or two, to introducing students to logic, critical thinking, or any such subjects.

Critical thinking is not taught much as such, though obviously good teachers of many subjects, especially in the humanities, will teach it as they go along. However the International Baccalaureate DOES have an explicit module on critical thinking. Not many schools teach that in the UK, though in fact my son may be about to choose it - he goes to a school where they offer the IB as an alternative to the normal British Advanced Level qualification. (This is the level at which pupils are assessed before university.)

 

[exchemist]

Thanks, I always get those terms mixed up. Nevertheless, the point stands. The only way to prove a negative is to clearly and precisely define the positive enough to reasonably ensure no further possibilities.

Let's take "Bigfoot" as an example. The only way to prove that such a creature does not exist on Earth is to define the creature clearly and precisely, and then examine the entire Earth closely enough to ensure that if one were there, it would not have been overlooked. Going for a walk in the woods and not seeing one is not proof. Going into the woods and seeing something that you think could have been one is not proof of it's existence. Other people's claims of having seen one is not proof of it's existence. Millions of people having never seen one is not proof that it does not exist. Nor are photographs, drawings, footprints, and so on, or the lack of these.

Proof requires that the phenomena observed fit a specific quantifiable criteria, and that the observations be quantifiable (reproducible) as well.

Yes, logical proof of non-existence of something, say pink unicorns or Bigfoot, is famously not possible to establish, unless it can be shown that the entity in question must have universally observable effects that can be tested for.

The positive corollary to that of course is why you can't prove a scientific theory true. No matter how many times you confirm it, there may always be some new class of observation to be made that could show it in error.

As I've observed on other thread, this is where belief, based on the trust we place in experience, enters the picture. After you've spent enough time investigating Bigfoot sightings without getting any more than a bit of dog hair, you are entitled to believe they don't exist. After you've found enough fossils showing a link between species and seen how their DNA similarities match the apparent fossil lineages, you are entitled to believe the theory of evolution.

But certainly, proof of non-existence of an entity seems generally not to be possible.

 

[james blunt]

Oh Boy! Riddle me this

Negative energy I pull from the ground if I am positive lightning.