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:
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.