Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 7:05 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
WLC: "You can't prove the negative"
#11
RE: WLC: "You can't prove the negative"
A while back we were talking about the word "falsify."

I explained that in Popper's sense of the word, you can falsify the statement "there is no monster in Loch Ness." If you found a monster there, then the statement would be falsified.

However, you can't falsify the statement "there is a monster in Loch Ness." That's because you could get a thousand experts to comb the whole lake, but there is always the chance that you've missed the monster. Just because you haven't found it isn't proof that it doesn't exist.

Obviously, the monster has mind-control powers, like Alec Guinness in the first Star Wars. When the scuba diver finds him, the monster waves his hand and says, "I am not the monster you're looking for." And the scuba diver goes away.

The point is that you can falsify the negative statement, but you can't prove it. You can't prove there is no monster.

When I wrote this before, several of the regular posters here told me I was all wrong, that of course we can prove there's no monster. So apparently it is a strongly-held belief among several posters that negatives can be proven. They think that "there is no monster in Loch Ness" has been proven.
Reply
#12
RE: WLC: "You can't prove the negative"
(February 16, 2022 at 8:51 pm)Belacqua Wrote: A while back we were talking about the word "falsify."

I explained that in Popper's sense of the word, you can falsify the statement "there is no monster in Loch Ness." If you found a monster there, then the statement would be falsified.

However, you can't falsify the statement "there is a monster in Loch Ness." That's because you could get a thousand experts to comb the whole lake, but there is always the chance that you've missed the monster. Just because you haven't found it isn't proof that it doesn't exist.

Obviously, the monster has mind-control powers, like Alec Guinness in the first Star Wars. When the scuba diver finds him, the monster waves his hand and says, "I am not the monster you're looking for." And the scuba diver goes away.

The point is that you can falsify the negative statement, but you can't prove it. You can't prove there is no monster.

When I wrote this before, several of the regular posters here told me I was all wrong, that of course we can prove there's no monster. So apparently it is a strongly-held belief among several posters that negatives can be proven. They think that "there is no monster in Loch Ness" has been proven.

By reasonable standards that everyone, believers included, live their lives by, there is no monster in Loch Ness.
Reply
#13
RE: WLC: "You can't prove the negative"
The issue seems to be that philosophers erroneously believe mathematical proof statements are knowledge statements.
"Never trust a fox. Looks like a dog, behaves like a cat."
~ Erin Hunter
Reply
#14
RE: WLC: "You can't prove the negative"
(February 16, 2022 at 9:48 pm)Foxaire Wrote: The issue seems to be that philosophers erroneously believe mathematical proof statements are knowledge statements.

No, it was philosophers who worked out what constitutes proof in the first place. And what is the difference between mathematical statements and other types. It's true that some philosophers are fuzzy on this, because some of them are not very good philosophers.

The error here was made by Fake Messiah. I'm not sure he would be happy to be called a philosopher.

(February 16, 2022 at 9:32 pm)Jehanne Wrote: By reasonable standards that everyone, believers included, live their lives by, there is no monster in Loch Ness.

Yes, I think it's often been pointed out that the word "proof" has a strict sense and an everyday sense.

The former is only for mathematics and other purely logical issues. That's why people will sometimes remind us that science doesn't deal in proof. 

Of course in the everyday sense we prove negatives all the time. In such cases, "proof" means something like "this has been demonstrated sufficiently so that every reasonable person would agree." 

So Craig is correct in what he says both about T. Rexes and married bachelors.
Reply
#15
RE: WLC: "You can't prove the negative"
(February 16, 2022 at 8:51 pm)Belacqua Wrote: A while back we were talking about the word "falsify."

I explained that in Popper's sense of the word, you can falsify the statement "there is no monster in Loch Ness." If you found a monster there, then the statement would be falsified.

However, you can't falsify the statement "there is a monster in Loch Ness." That's because you could get a thousand experts to comb the whole lake, but there is always the chance that you've missed the monster. Just because you haven't found it isn't proof that it doesn't exist.

Obviously, the monster has mind-control powers, like Alec Guinness in the first Star Wars. When the scuba diver finds him, the monster waves his hand and says, "I am not the monster you're looking for." And the scuba diver goes away.

The point is that you can falsify the negative statement, but you can't prove it. You can't prove there is no monster.

When I wrote this before, several of the regular posters here told me I was all wrong, that of course we can prove there's no monster. So apparently it is a strongly-held belief among several posters that negatives can be proven. They think that "there is no monster in Loch Ness" has been proven.

No need to as that's not how the burden of proof works. 

The statement should always be there is a monster - which carries the burden of proof. If there is no monster that is known and/or seen etc; there's no need to claim that there is no monster, no need to prove anything. Otherwise infinite unprovable claims can be made about any random concept of imagination.
Reply
#16
RE: WLC: "You can't prove the negative"
(February 16, 2022 at 10:02 pm)OCavalry Wrote:
(February 16, 2022 at 8:51 pm)Belacqua Wrote: A while back we were talking about the word "falsify."

I explained that in Popper's sense of the word, you can falsify the statement "there is no monster in Loch Ness." If you found a monster there, then the statement would be falsified.

However, you can't falsify the statement "there is a monster in Loch Ness." That's because you could get a thousand experts to comb the whole lake, but there is always the chance that you've missed the monster. Just because you haven't found it isn't proof that it doesn't exist.

Obviously, the monster has mind-control powers, like Alec Guinness in the first Star Wars. When the scuba diver finds him, the monster waves his hand and says, "I am not the monster you're looking for." And the scuba diver goes away.

The point is that you can falsify the negative statement, but you can't prove it. You can't prove there is no monster.

When I wrote this before, several of the regular posters here told me I was all wrong, that of course we can prove there's no monster. So apparently it is a strongly-held belief among several posters that negatives can be proven. They think that "there is no monster in Loch Ness" has been proven.

No need to as that's not how the burden of proof works. 

The statement should always be there is a monster - which carries the burden of proof. If there is no monster that is known and/or seen etc; there's no need to claim that there is no monster, no need to prove anything. Otherwise infinite unprovable claims can be made about any random concept of imagination.

We had a recent thread about how the burden of proof works.

Some people seem to think it's a law, as if it was handed down by Moses, or is some kind of law of nature. Others disagree. It may not be as self-evident as it seems.
Reply
#17
RE: WLC: "You can't prove the negative"
(February 16, 2022 at 9:54 pm)Belacqua Wrote: The error here was made by Fake Messiah. I'm not sure he would be happy to be called a philosopher.

Compared to you I am a philosopher because I am trying to discuss a subject while you turn everything into gossiping other members of the forum and similar useless claptrap.
teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five long centuries. It was even possible for the most venerated patriarchs of the Church, like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, to conclude that heretics should be tortured (Augustine) or killed outright (Aquinas). Martin Luther and John Calvin advocated the wholesale murder of heretics, apostates, Jews, and witches. - Sam Harris, "Letter To A Christian Nation"
Reply
#18
RE: WLC: "You can't prove the negative"
(February 16, 2022 at 8:58 am)GrandizerII Wrote: No, he's generally correct. You can often prove the negative.

The issue is that you're referring to the strict deductive sense of the word "proof" when that isn't necessary here.

Also, atheists need to let go of this delusion that WLC is a dummy when it comes to logic. This guy is more trained in logic and critical thinking than most of us here.

Perhaps, but he comes off as even more smug than me.
<insert profound quote here>
Reply
#19
RE: WLC: "You can't prove the negative"
(February 17, 2022 at 12:20 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:
(February 16, 2022 at 8:58 am)GrandizerII Wrote: No, he's generally correct. You can often prove the negative.

The issue is that you're referring to the strict deductive sense of the word "proof" when that isn't necessary here.

Also, atheists need to let go of this delusion that WLC is a dummy when it comes to logic. This guy is more trained in logic and critical thinking than most of us here.

Perhaps, but he comes off as even more smug than me.

You do not deny the existence of the number zero; at least that's my impression.
Reply
#20
RE: WLC: "You can't prove the negative"
(February 16, 2022 at 10:25 pm)Belacqua Wrote:
(February 16, 2022 at 10:02 pm)OCavalry Wrote: No need to as that's not how the burden of proof works. 

The statement should always be there is a monster - which carries the burden of proof. If there is no monster that is known and/or seen etc; there's no need to claim that there is no monster, no need to prove anything. Otherwise infinite unprovable claims can be made about any random concept of imagination.

We had a recent thread about how the burden of proof works.

Some people seem to think it's a law, as if it was handed down by Moses, or is some kind of law of nature. Others disagree. It may not be as self-evident as it seems.

I gave a bit of reasoning to why the burden of proof is where I said it was. Not sure you if think I'm using it as you mentioned. Then again you did post "some people" use it that way, maybe you're shading someone who you don't like in hopes they are reading.

Anyway, same thing applies to proof of gods/relgion. We shouldn't try to prove "there is no god" because that's impossible, and leaves the imagination to insert any number of gods, monsters, mythical creatures. If a god is proposed, whether it be by viking pagan seers or a monotheistic prophet, the burden of proof would be on the one claiming there is a god.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Prove honesty is virtuous! Mystic 15 1580 May 30, 2018 at 7:51 pm
Last Post: Brian37
  WLC, Free Will, and God's divine foreknowledge SuperSentient 15 2671 April 1, 2017 at 2:50 am
Last Post: bennyboy
  Watch WLC dodge a clear question. Jehanne 10 2107 December 10, 2016 at 9:37 pm
Last Post: Gemini
  You can't prove to me you are an atheist. Knowledge of God 129 16910 June 29, 2014 at 4:12 pm
Last Post: Whateverist
  Negative thinking is better then positive thinking Gooders1002 6 1929 May 7, 2013 at 5:26 am
Last Post: KichigaiNeko
  You can't prove a negative (parody) Mystic 33 17710 April 10, 2013 at 4:56 pm
Last Post: Godscreated
  Morality, Justice, Greatness - do these things prove God? Mystic 25 9682 March 5, 2012 at 1:20 am
Last Post: AthiestAtheist
  Proving The Negative little_monkey 1 1093 October 14, 2011 at 9:15 am
Last Post: Epimethean
  You cant prove a negative! The Grand Nudger 17 8110 July 6, 2011 at 11:09 pm
Last Post: BethK
  'Prove claims' question. Edwardo Piet 38 16330 December 17, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Last Post: Edwardo Piet



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)