WLC: "You can't prove the negative"

[Belacqua]

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.

[Jehanne]

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.

[Silver]

The issue seems to be that philosophers erroneously believe mathematical proof statements are knowledge statements.

[Belacqua]

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.

---

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.

[Cavalry]

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.

[Belacqua]

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.

[Fake Messiah]

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.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

[Jehanne]

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.

[Cavalry]

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.