Nancy Pelosi thinks that Trump is guilty until proven innocent. Trolling in this Movie is getting good!
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (32)
sorted by:
This is pretty much exactly my point. I don't really disagree with anything you've said other than the semantics of the whole thing.
I think others have it in the wrong terms. As I said, my definition of "proof" expands past what you can see or point to.
The way I see it, when someone says you can't prove a negative, they are simply wrong. Doesn't mean people should start having to prove their innocence in court, but it's still a very narrow view of the topic, I think, to say a negative can't be proven.
What's the functional difference between proving a negative, and proving a positive that necessarily excludes something which asserts the negative.
As with my original example, for all intents and purposes the negative that proof was requested for was proven. Or whatever word you want to use to describe the fact that what was being asked for was received and satisfied. Again, proving innocence is unjust, but you can certainly apply this principle in other areas.
By negative they mean a "non event" or "nothing happening" and by "proof" they are referring to real physical evidence, not a logical deduction. You cannot do anything outside of think about the idea of nothing, you cannot hold nothing in your hand, otherwise you would be holding something. This is the principle people are referring to by the statement "you cannot prove a negative", they do not mean that you cannot logically think about the idea of nothing happening, they mean that there is no physical reality represented by the word "nothing" or something "not happening" in the same way that there is if you were to accuse someone of "doing something". The burden of proof must lie on the accuser because if something happened, logically it follows there should be evidence, if something didn't happen then logically you can only have evidence of something else happening and deduce from that something not happening, obviously having actual evidence is stronger than a mere logical deduction, thus the reason for not needing to prove your innocence, prove that an event didn't happen, prove a "non event", a "non happening", or as a lot of people put it, "you can't prove a negative". That is the meaning of the statement, that is what I've been trying to get you to see, it has nothing to do with what you are able to logically think about, hence I am saying you are thinking about this in the wrong terms, because you are.
Yes, I am aware. Hence why I said I think people's definition of what constitutes "proof" is too narrow. Hence my original statement.
Again, I know what people mean and don't disagree with really anything you have said. I just don't think "proof" is as narrow as you and other people make it out to be. In my opinion, the common view of "proof" is overly naturalistic and materialistic and discounts other, perfectly valid modes of thinking that can be used to come to rational, valid conclusions on events that have taken place, among other things.
Like you say, proof can mean a number of things, realistically it could mean an infinite number of things, but when people say the phrase "you can't prove a negative" they aren't taking the word "prove" or "proof" in an infinite sense, they mean a very strict type of proof. They mean physical proof, something tangible, not what can be logically deduced. Logically you can think of nothing, but is there an actual reality that is represented by the word "nothing"? No. Otherwise by definition it would be "something". So long as you are thinking about it logically it won't make sense, because using our logic it makes perfect sense that if you were doing x you couldn't be doing y, but when people say the phrase they aren't using it in this sense. That is the point I'm trying to get across, obviously I can take any word and have it mean absolutely whatever I want, but when people say "you can't prove a negative" they mean what I am trying to describe, they aren't talking about whether or not you can logically deduce something whatsoever, they are talking about what can happen in the real world, and in the real world you can't have something that "doesn't exist", because if you did, it would "exist".
Might there be a better way to get this point across? Probably, but language is a symbol that represents a reality, and it is tough to speak about a "non reality" using a language wherein everything has a certain reality it represents.