"You Can’t Prove A Negative"

[chaz wyman]

EH, thanks for replying. But, I'm sorry, you've completed ignored my review of your analogies.

I am not stating that because billions of people claim there is a God, therefore this proves there must be a God.

I'm saying that that the scale of the God proposal is so large, that it bears no resemblance to the pink unicorn and leprechaun analogies you keep trying to make.

Billions of people claim there is a God, and only one, me, claims there is a pink unicorn. Billions vs. one. See the math here???

Irrelevant because Allah, Zeus, Shiva, Diana, the big JubJub, Jahovah (protestant, jew or catholic etc..). None of these claims is remotely the same. But what IS the same is the epistemological status of all of them which has the same status as Santa Claus and the Pink fairy from Dingily Dell.

[chaz wyman]

I come to think of this crime-scene where the investigators prove that a certain person is not the killer, ie. police investigators prove this negative all the time.

Besides, this thread is not about religion which is the reason that I've placed it here, under Philosophy of Science. I hope you can discuss the religion elsewhere... Thank you.

Cheers!

Sadly naive!!! No police investigators are interested in the negative. It is their duty to prove guilt. ALong the way they might eliminate suspect but this involves an alibi - which is a POSITIVE.
When they get to court, there is a very good reason that the defence lawyers do NOT have to prove a negative as their client is innocent until proven guilty. This is an excellent example of the rejection of the possibility of proving a negative and shoes that philosophers have had a say in the design of jurisprudence. ALL examples of bad justice around the world is where this rubric is rejected and the accused has to prove themselves innocent.

[chaz wyman]

What degree of certainty sufficiently identifies negative phenomena?

There are NO negative phenomena.

[Sol]

What degree of certainty sufficiently identifies negative phenomena?

The degree of certainty that sufficiently identifies possible phenomena [i.e. phenomena that cannot be easily agreed upon, such as a higher being] could not be agreed upon. Perhaps because one view arises out of it's counter view. This said, the possibility of such phenomena remains only possible because the degree of certainty as a value will always be disputed, categorically.

Turning toward the degree of certainty that sufficiently identifies positive phenomena - Hyperbolic doubt will always obfuscate the very nature of certainty, methodically.

So whilst we can invoke common sense and recognise that the concept of negative phenomena appears to be absurd, we can't with any certainty identify either positive phenomena nor possible phenomena.

So perhaps negative phenomena could be identified as what is not categorised and what is not methodised. Whilst with such parameters we could not really call it positive phenomena, we could reasonably call it possible phenomena.

This way may allow us to respect the fact that inroads are made all the time in answering questions and we may at some point resolve the question. This answer also frees us from dogmatic statements and suggests that for the time being, that whether 'you can't prove a negative' is as they say in Scots Law - 'not proven' rather than not provable.

[chaz wyman]

What degree of certainty sufficiently identifies negative phenomena?

The degree of certainty that sufficiently identifies possible phenomena [i.e. phenomena that cannot be easily agreed upon, such as a higher being] could not be agreed upon. Perhaps because one view arises out of it's counter view. This said, the possibility of such phenomena remains only possible because the degree of certainty as a value will always be disputed, categorically.

Turning toward the degree of certainty that sufficiently identifies positive phenomena - Hyperbolic doubt will always obfuscate the very nature of certainty, methodically.

So whilst we can invoke common sense and recognise that the concept of negative phenomena appears to be absurd, we can't with any certainty identify either positive phenomena nor possible phenomena.

So perhaps negative phenomena could be identified as what is not categorised and what is not methodised. Whilst with such parameters we could not really call it positive phenomena, we could reasonably call it possible phenomena.

This way may allow us to respect the fact that inroads are made all the time in answering questions and we may at some point resolve the question. This answer also frees us from dogmatic statements and suggests that for the time being, that whether 'you can't prove a negative' is as they say in Scots Law - 'not proven' rather than not provable.

Are you not missing something here??
Can you name one single negative phenomenon?

[Sol]

get rid of the problem of proving or refuting the claim that an object exists or not, by restating the problem as proving or refuting the possibility that the object exists, which requires a definition of the object

I think Mikes's view is helpful here. I have stated, as a possible definition of negative phenomena, that which is not (not yet if you like) categorised and not methodised. This means that I cannot state any negative phenomena [in this language game] but recognise the possibility of it. I hold that the possibilty is not proven, rather than not provable by definition.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.


WOW Aetixintro what hot topic you have presented!

This thread is exemplifying the best possible characteristics of philosophers.

This is great!

With the use of block quotes this thread is like reading a script between a group of dedicated philosophers in one room.


Then Mike Strand takes it to a new level by introducing an actual script between two imaginary people.

Perhaps the Philosophy Now forum is approaching a point where the state of the art is…necessitating a live video community that will soon replace this written word?


Is life attempting to imitate art?


Or is it art imitating life?


Regardless, I am impressed by the way this thread is all over the place yet focused upon one under riding current of the philosophical structure of thought.

VERY interesting…


.

[Aetixintro]

Sadly naive!!! No police investigators are interested in the negative. It is their duty to prove guilt. ALong the way they might eliminate suspect but this involves an alibi - which is a POSITIVE.
When they get to court, there is a very good reason that the defence lawyers do NOT have to prove a negative as their client is innocent until proven guilty. This is an excellent example of the rejection of the possibility of proving a negative and shoes that philosophers have had a say in the design of jurisprudence. ALL examples of bad justice around the world is where this rubric is rejected and the accused has to prove themselves innocent.

Ever heard of the elimination process? No? You have a set of people who may have committed this crime and then you investigate until the criminal has been found! You rule out the negatives and clinch the guilty!

[chaz wyman]

Sadly naive!!! No police investigators are interested in the negative. It is their duty to prove guilt. ALong the way they might eliminate suspect but this involves an alibi - which is a POSITIVE.
When they get to court, there is a very good reason that the defence lawyers do NOT have to prove a negative as their client is innocent until proven guilty. This is an excellent example of the rejection of the possibility of proving a negative and shoes that philosophers have had a say in the design of jurisprudence. ALL examples of bad justice around the world is where this rubric is rejected and the accused has to prove themselves innocent.

Ever heard of the elimination process? No? You have a set of people who may have committed this crime and then you investigate until the criminal has been found! You rule out the negatives and clinch the guilty!

Yes the elimination process is when an alibi is found for each suspect - that IS a positive. Did you not read what I said?
An alibi is a positive assertion that rules out the suspect.

[Aetixintro]

That is, this suspect has been proven to not be the offender, ie. to prove a negative! An alibi enters as a different description and to prove the negative for an alibi is a whole different process, but you know this, don't you?

[evangelicalhumanist]

Perhaps we've missed a bit of nuance in this thread. The idea that you cannot prove a negative really only applies to the non-existence of something -- that is, for any supposed thing that might (conceivably) exist, it is impossible to prove that it does not or did not exist somewhere or sometime in the universe.

The business of proving someone not guilty of a crime is a different matter altogether. Now we are talking about attributes of things known to exist. Those sorts of negatives we can prove all the time. We can prove, for example, that it is impossible for any fraction to completely represent the number which, when multiplied by itself, gives 2. This fact was very upsetting to the ancient Pythagoreans, by the way, but they did in fact prove it.

Restating that a bit, we can prove that one of the attributes of the square root of 2 is that it is not a rational number.

[Aetixintro]

Perhaps we've missed a bit of nuance in this thread. The idea that you cannot prove a negative really only applies to the non-existence of something -- that is, for any supposed thing that might (conceivably) exist, it is impossible to prove that it does not or did not exist somewhere or sometime in the universe.

I think this is correct! I think of proving a negative in a very limited sense, not implying natural laws or generalisations! What I'm implying, is that in a limited span of time and a limited space, you can prove a negative finding!

F.x. this object in this public space at this time, the suspect who isn't the perpetrator, the finding of a natural law within this scope and with this research equipment and this, "proving a negative" continues in this fashion!

Cheers!

[chaz wyman]

That is, this suspect has been proven to not be the offender, ie. to prove a negative! An alibi enters as a different description and to prove the negative for an alibi is a whole different process, but you know this, don't you?

I think you might like Adorno's Negative Dialectics.

[bytesplicer]

Perhaps we've missed a bit of nuance in this thread. The idea that you cannot prove a negative really only applies to the non-existence of something -- that is, for any supposed thing that might (conceivably) exist, it is impossible to prove that it does not or did not exist somewhere or sometime in the universe.

The business of proving someone not guilty of a crime is a different matter altogether. Now we are talking about attributes of things known to exist. Those sorts of negatives we can prove all the time. We can prove, for example, that it is impossible for any fraction to completely represent the number which, when multiplied by itself, gives 2. This fact was very upsetting to the ancient Pythagoreans, by the way, but they did in fact prove it.

Restating that a bit, we can prove that one of the attributes of the square root of 2 is that it is not a rational number.

This is all very true, but it must be remembered that mathematical proofs ultimately sit upon unproven (but seemingly true) axioms. Thus there is always a possibility, however slight, that a situation will come to light where an axiom is proven untrue, unravelling many of the proofs that depend on it. On the subject of crime, evidence can be manufactured and witnesses bought, the truth from the evidence may not always match the truth of the original circumstances. If no-one's the wiser, this false truth becomes the truth. The phrase 'history is written by the winners' sums it up quite nicely.

So, really, you can't prove a negative or a positive, unless you purposefully limit the domain of your search, based upon axioms, conditions or restrictions, or a particular method. Without restrictions you end up with a possibly infinite search. With restrictions, you may miss what you're looking for altogether, or end up with false positives. With a positive condition, you know when the search is over, but the search may still go on forever. With a negative, you're not even sure of the stopping condition, and the search may still go on forever, but you may stumble on the answer. Also, what is true (or false) now may not always remain so, how can you prove this either way?

Take our friend the pink unicorn. This guy pops up in a few religious debates concerned with the existence or non-existence of god. Say our clever genetic engineers manage to make a pink horse with a horn, does this constitute the existence of a pink unicorn? Say the pink horny horse gets free, and society collapses back to a more primitive time. Some people, while hunting, see the descendent of the pink horny horse. Consulting the sacred texts, they see several references to a pink unicorn, and assume that what they've seen is the mythical pink unicorn. Are they right in believing in pink unicorns? The evidence is there, but their interpretation of the evidence doesn't match the 'reality' or 'truth'.

In the case of God, we have in general two ideas about this. God created the universe, or the universe just exists. What about other possibilities. A spontaneously created universe in which a God eventually appeared and made us. Or an eternal God who notices this universe pop out of nothing, and decides to play around with it a bit. In our search for proof one way or the other, perhaps we have pre-restricted our thinking too much, shaping the evidence we finally see.

Have we ever proved the validity of proof?

[chaz wyman]

Perhaps we've missed a bit of nuance in this thread. The idea that you cannot prove a negative really only applies to the non-existence of something -- that is, for any supposed thing that might (conceivably) exist, it is impossible to prove that it does not or did not exist somewhere or sometime in the universe.

The business of proving someone not guilty of a crime is a different matter altogether. Now we are talking about attributes of things known to exist. Those sorts of negatives we can prove all the time. We can prove, for example, that it is impossible for any fraction to completely represent the number which, when multiplied by itself, gives 2. This fact was very upsetting to the ancient Pythagoreans, by the way, but they did in fact prove it.

Restating that a bit, we can prove that one of the attributes of the square root of 2 is that it is not a rational number.

This is all very true, but it must be remembered that mathematical proofs ultimately sit upon unproven (but seemingly true) axioms. Thus there is always a possibility, however slight, that a situation will come to light where an axiom is proven untrue, unravelling many of the proofs that depend on it. On the subject of crime, evidence can be manufactured and witnesses bought, the truth from the evidence may not always match the truth of the original circumstances. If no-one's the wiser, this false truth becomes the truth. The phrase 'history is written by the winners' sums it up quite nicely.

So, really, you can't prove a negative or a positive, unless you purposefully limit the domain of your search, based upon axioms, conditions or restrictions, or a particular method. Without restrictions you end up with a possibly infinite search. With restrictions, you may miss what you're looking for altogether, or end up with false positives. With a positive condition, you know when the search is over, but the search may still go on forever. With a negative, you're not even sure of the stopping condition, and the search may still go on forever, but you may stumble on the answer. Also, what is true (or false) now may not always remain so, how can you prove this either way?

Take our friend the pink unicorn. This guy pops up in a few religious debates concerned with the existence or non-existence of god. Say our clever genetic engineers manage to make a pink horse with a horn, does this constitute the existence of a pink unicorn? Say the pink horny horse gets free, and society collapses back to a more primitive time. Some people, while hunting, see the descendent of the pink horny horse. Consulting the sacred texts, they see several references to a pink unicorn, and assume that what they've seen is the mythical pink unicorn. Are they right in believing in pink unicorns? The evidence is there, but their interpretation of the evidence doesn't match the 'reality' or 'truth'.

In the case of God, we have in general two ideas about this. God created the universe, or the universe just exists. What about other possibilities. A spontaneously created universe in which a God eventually appeared and made us. Or an eternal God who notices this universe pop out of nothing, and decides to play around with it a bit. In our search for proof one way or the other, perhaps we have pre-restricted our thinking too much, shaping the evidence we finally see.

Have we ever proved the validity of proof?

Some famous French mathematician once said Geometry is not natural, but it is useful. Maths is a human conceit, and is internally coherent, a perfect example of circularity of argumentation. It might seem wonderfully remarkable that 3+2 always, equals 5, but this is only because 5-2=3. Starting from self defined axioms Maths is a system that is self justifying and a priori. But those axioms only refer to ideas within Maths which are approximations of nature.
When applied to nature its results are always approximate. Some of its statements are incommensurable such as irrational numbers. There are no straight lines or integers in nature, no two things are identical, so such proximate answers that maths asserts are only as good as their model.