Cognitive Dissonance -- It Sucks

[Guest]

But, your claim that the “negative just proved” is incorrect.

Sorry to challenge you here because we are in most general agreement.

You just have science wrong here.

JAK

We'll probably have to agree to disagree then. However, I'll make my case to anyone that's interested.

1) The burden of proof is on the person who makes an assertion. Thus, the earth is NOT a square is an assertion. Not only is it an assertion, but it's a negative assertion. Rather than stating what it is, I'm stating what it is not... And I can prove it. Thus the negative assertion is proved true. This can be the same for "there are no married bachelors", or "there are no triangle circles". These are negative statements that in of themselves are proof enough of their veracity.

2) Modus Tollens.

3) Bigus Ballus Argumentum: Simply put, you can make a negative assertion and it stands true unless someone wants to provide a positive assertion to counter it, BUT... The onus is on the person making a positive assertion. Asserting what "is" is vastly different than asserting what "is not". Therefore I can confidently assert that there is NOT a god, and it stands until someone making a positive assertion provides empirical proof otherwise. In other words, what is NOT is true until proven otherwise: I can assert that there are NO dogs in America, but it would be proven false as soon as my girlfriend's large dogs come into my room and sniff me.

I would think that most reasonable people who aren't intimidated by the thought-terminating cliché, "You can't prove a negative." would agree with my assertion and examples.

[_JAK]

Allegedly the Holy Ghost can warn us of danger and other pitfalls as well as give us a stupor of thought that is a no answer. Allegedly the Holy Ghost can tell me a decision I have made say on a career choice is the wrong decision so the Holy Ghost can confirm a negative. You are simply wrong there. But the main point is the so called witness of the Holy Ghost is simply subjective and that is it. It cannot hbe used to prove anything either way.

Charity:
By subjective I mean that only the person involved can experience it. But when I experience it, it is proof. I understand that someone else who has not experienced it may not accept that. I accept that others have had a witness to something that I haven't. And there have been times when my experience has been exactly what others describe as happening at the same time. I was introduced to President Kimball at the dedication o the Seattle Temple, as the organist who had played for the dedication. The choir director was with me at the time. When we were speaking of the experience later, we both had had unmistakeable witness that he was a prophet. Simultaneously.

Prehaps. But you said the HG only reveals truth or confirms it. This is one of many things the HG supposedly does that is different from what you proposed.

Charity:
Sorry to have not spoken clearly. I was trying to limit the discussion to manifestations of truth as gifts of the Spirit. The Spirit also comforts, the Spirit also gives joy. These are not matters of truth or discernment.

This [stupor of thought] certainly is the confirmation of a negative. I think I should take the job. The HG tells me in whatever way the HG does it that I should not. This is a negative answer.

Charity:
I can see what you mean. But what I meant was that you won't get a "burning in the bosom" that something is wrong. (By burning in the bosom I mean that in a generic sense as a manifestation of truth.) There is no comparable manifestation to the one for truth to the one for error. Stupor of thought is a negative state, not a positive one.

I agree that the witness of the Holy Ghost is subjective. It is entirely internal to the person, which can never be "proven": to anyone else. If while you are speaking, the Holy Ghost confirms to me that you are speaking the truth, then I can KNOW that you were, but again, that is subjective. Entirely internal.

And the HG can tell you that when someone says is hooey. You know, this gift called discernment. The idea that the HG cannot confirm anything but truth is a positive confirmation sort of way is your own contrivance Charity. I have never heard such a thing taught by and LDS leader nor in the scripture. Please corret me from those sources and not from your own apologetic a priori.

Charity:
I could be wrong, but my experience with the witness of the Holy Ghost, my study of the scriptures regarding gifts of the Spirit leads me to believe that what I said is correct.

Charity stated:
By subjective I mean that only the person involved can experience it. But when I experience it, it is proof.

Wrong. Subjective experience is generally personal, emotional, and unreliable. You have no accurate concept of the word proof. You need a great deal of education on that term. Subjective experience, emotionalism is not “proof.”

See: Proof theory

See: Logical argument

See: Evidence

See: Scientific Demonstration

You don’t like long posts. Get yourself educated on terms you use.

Charity stated:
I understand that someone else who has not experienced it may not accept that.

Precisely the place where clear, transparent evidence is critical for any attempt to prove.

Charity stated:
I was introduced to President Kimball at the dedication o the Seattle Temple, as the organist who had played for the dedication. The choir director was with me at the time. When we were speaking of the experience later, we both had had unmistakeable witness that he was a prophet. Simultaneously.

You both accepted the same religious myth, you both were in the same environment. It’s quite a logical conclusion that you might have the same impression. That in no way gives the impression reliability.

People become suicide bombers as a result of exposure to religious indoctrination and the same environment. You’re no suicide bomber. But, if you were a relatively uninformed Muslim, you might well be persuaded to become one.

Why? It’s because you are highly susceptible to religious indoctrination. You demonstrate that over and over.

Charity stated:
I could be wrong, but my experience with the witness of the Holy Ghost, my study of the scriptures regarding gifts of the Spirit leads me to believe that what I said is correct.

Yes, you “could be wrong.” You have presented nothing to support the claim “Holy Ghost.” There is no evidence for any such claimed entity.

It’s a part of religious mythology. It’s unreliable. Your notion of “Holy Ghost” is quite different from the evangelical Southern Baptist’s notion of the same term. One of you is wrong (both).

Emotional feelings are generally unreliable. Particularly, they are unreliable in the context of religious fervor. Why? It’s because there is a lack of consensus in religious claims for “Holy Ghost.”

JAK

[_JAK]

But, your claim that the “negative just proved” is incorrect.

Sorry to challenge you here because we are in most general agreement.

You just have science wrong here.

JAK

We'll probably have to agree to disagree then. However, I'll make my case to anyone that's interested.

1) The burden of proof is on the person who makes an assertion. Thus, the earth is NOT a square is an assertion. Not only is it an assertion, but it's a negative assertion. Rather than stating what it is, I'm stating what it is not... And I can prove it. Thus the negative assertion is proved true. This can be the same for "there are no married bachelors", or "there are no triangle circles". These are negative statements that in of themselves are proof enough of their veracity.

2) Modus Tollens.

3) Bigus Ballus Argumentum: Simply put, you can make a negative assertion and it stands true unless someone wants to provide a positive assertion to counter it, BUT... The onus is on the person making a positive assertion. Asserting what "is" is vastly different than asserting what "is not". Therefore I can confidently assert that there is NOT a god, and it stands until someone making a positive assertion provides empirical proof otherwise. In other words, what is NOT is true until proven otherwise: I can assert that there are NO dogs in America, but it would be proven false as soon as my girlfriend's large dogs come into my room and sniff me.

I would think that most reasonable people who aren't intimidated by the thought-terminating cliché, "You can't prove a negative." would agree with my assertion and examples.

antishock8,

You have made no refutation here of my post which you failed to quote in its entirety and address point by point.

I’ll necessarily repeat parts of that in response here.

antishock8 states:
1) The burden of prove is on the person who makes an assertion. Thus, the earth is NOT a square is an assertion.

No one would have stated that out of the blue. It follows a stated or implied assertion. That stated or implied assertion is: The earth is round. That’s the affirmative case.

You would not say to me: There are not little green ants on the back side of the moon.

Why would you say such a thing? You would not. The statement would only follow an affirmative claim by me that there WERE little green ants on the back side of the moon.

The burden of proof lies with the affirmative and the affirmative claim.

The assertion to which you allude is the affirmative claim: The earth is round. That has now been established with evidence to prove the affirmative claim.

In addition, there is no need for any negative side to comment absent affirmative evidence with which that negative side intends to disagree. So, you’re simply incorrect here.

antishock8 states:
Rather than stating what it is, I'm stating what it is not... And I can prove it.

Incorrect. You don’t prove a negative in this example. You prove or establish clear, transparent evidence for an affirmative claim. That affirmative claim is: the earth is round.

You don’t prove a negative. Rather you prove an affirmative. When the first scientists (they were not called scientists) began to produce evidence that the earth was round, they were producing affirmative evidence.

They were despised, ridiculed, imprisoned, etc. However, over time and with persistence of emerging science, the affirmative claim was established. Those scientists did not prove a negative. We can conclude that the world is not square. But that’s a conclusion as a result of overwhelming evidence that the earth is round (the affirmative claim and burden of proof).

As a negative, one has no responsibility to go around making “not” claims. Further, one should avoid doing that.

antishock8 states:
Thus the negative assertion is proved true. This can be the same for "there are no married bachelors", or "there are no triangle circles". These are negative statements that in of themselves are proof enough of their veracity.

Again, your position is refuted on the first sentence. The second is entirely a matter of definition not a matter of affirmative evidence. We agree upon the definition of “bachelor.” It's irrelevant to the issue as to where the burden of proof rests.

While your conclusions are correct, they are not negative proof. You simply are incorrect here.

Let me illustrate further. As a matter of principle, one does not generally make negative assertion in the absence of an affirmative claim either stated or implied.

An atheist does not (or should not) go around saying that he can prove there is not a god. To do so, leaves him open to prove a negative. Well, he cannot prove the negative claim.

However, if another claims God, that claimant has the burden of proof for the claim.

On these religious boards, we frequently hear religious pundits say: Prove there is no God. They are attempting to shift the burden of proof.

The burden of proof is on the affirmative. Hence, when someone claims that God exists, the skeptic can and should ask for clear, transparent evidence for the claim.

It’s not up to the negative (or the skeptic) to prove a negative.

On the contrary, it’s up to the affirmative to provide compelling evidence.

Another principle of burden of proof is this. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the proof required.

A claim: It’s raining is not extraordinary (in the Midwest). We can easily establish evidence regarding that affirmative claim. If it’s dry, grass is parched, temperature is 90 degrees, humidity is 10%, etc., the affirmative claim is not established.

Again, a negative posture is only taken in the face of an implied or stated affirmative claim. That principle can be established in your illustrations which I have not addressed.

JAK

[_antishock8]

Hi Jak,

I'm simply addressing the statement/idea that one cannot prove a negative. The idea that a negative cannot be proven is fallacious. Negative statements are proven to be true all the time:

I don't have any money in my wallet.

There is no paper in the printer.

Jesus Christ isn't sitting on my desk.

I think what you might be getting hung up on is the nature of the positive statement that is being refuted when someone says that you can't prove a negative. If the thing that is being asserted has no certifiable definition, no characteristics, and no location then you're right... You can't prove that it doesn't exist because it has no agreed-upon definition so it exists outside reality. In other words you can't prove that a fantasy doesn't exist precisely because it is a fantasy.

Anyway. I digress.

I'm confident that the term, "You can't prove a negative, therefore god exists." is a bit of a non sequitur (because this particular assertion is really what we're addressing). An argument from ignorance isn't proof in of itself. Just don't confuse an absence-of-evidence-is-evidence-of-absence with an argument from ignorance. The former is valid while the latter is clearly not.

[_JAK]

Hi Jak,

I'm simply addressing the statement/idea that one cannot prove a negative. The idea that a negative cannot be proven is fallacious. Negative statements are proven to be true all the time:

I don't have any money in my wallet.

There is no paper in the printer.

Jesus Christ isn't sitting on my desk.

I think what you might be getting hung up on is the nature of the positive statement that is being refuted when someone says that you can't prove a negative. If the thing that is being asserted has no certifiable definition, no characteristics, and no location then you're right... You can't prove that it doesn't exist because it has no agreed-upon definition so it exists outside reality. In other words you can't prove that a fantasy doesn't exist precisely because it is a fantasy.

Anyway. I digress.

I'm confident that the term, "You can't prove a negative, therefore god exists." is a bit of a non sequitur (because this particular assertion is really what we're addressing). An argument from ignorance isn't proof in of itself. Just don't confuse an absence-of-evidence-is-evidence-of-absence with an argument from ignorance. The former is valid while the latter is clearly not.

Hi NY,

If you will re-read my posts, I stated that generally we do not prove a negative. In the specific examples which you gave previously, it was an affirmative (stated or implied) which required the burden of proof.

Recall my previous statement in posts above:

“Generally, science proves (or supplies compelling evidence) for an affirmative.”

antishock8 states:
I'm simply addressing the statement/idea that one cannot prove a negative.

Research my posts. I made no such statement. Perhaps your thinking of someone else.

antishock8 states:
The idea that a negative cannot be proven is fallacious.

Nor did I argue that position as you state it. Since you have not quoted me but merely attempted a paraphrase, you’re making a straw man attack (attacking something which I did not state).

If genuine communication is the goal, a direct quote in context is best to avoid misrepresentation of what another has said.

Now to address your additional examples in this latest post:

First, a restatement of the principle: Those making an affirmative claim have the burden of proof for that claim.

A corollary to that is that there is no need for a negative argument absent evidence for an implied or stated claim of an affirmative position.

antishock8 states:
I don't have any money in my wallet.

You are setting this forward as if it’s a negative claim. It’s not. It’s an affirmative claim that you do not have money in your wallet.

Hence, you claim $0.00

How do we establish the validity of your claim for $0.00?

We (or ten of us) carefully examine the contents of your wallet. If upon that examination, we have consensus that you have $0.00 in your wallet, your affirmative claim for $0.00 is confirmed.

So in your first example, we see that you made an affirmative claim. By examination (objective, honest, transparent), we can confirm the validity of your claim by looking. (It is assumed that you do not have a trick wallet or that there is no other trick in your claim.)

Moving forward…

antishock8 states:
There is no paper in the printer.

Like the previous example, the affirmative claim is “no paper.” Let’s assume that we have a clear and agreed upon working definition for “printer” and for “paper” and for any other physical aspects related to your claim. There are no tricks.

The problem with such examples is that people misunderstand that a claim for “no paper” is a negative claim. That’s incorrect in the examples you have set forward.

If we were to find paper in “the printer,” your affirmative claim for “no paper” would be evidenced to be false.

If we believe you, we expect to find “no paper.” That is a find. If we doubt your claim, finding paper would discredit your affirmative claim: “no paper.”

Neither of these examples demonstrate that a negative has been proved.

What are the claims? One claims $0.00 (no money). The other claims zero paper (no paper).

Both claims are affirmative claims.

Now let’s address this additionally.

Suppose you claim: I have money in my wallet.

That also is an affirmative claim. You make the claim. The tests are much the same. We look in your wallet. If we find $0.00 in your wallet, your affirmative claim: I have money is not established.

The same process would be the case if you had claimed: I have $200.00 in my wallet.

However, in this case you could have less than you claim, or you could have more than you claim. You cannot have less than $0.00 in your wallet. (No tricks here such as a debt you owe, hence a claim that you have -$1,000 in your wallet.) We cannot observe “-$1,000."

Your third example is significantly more complex because of the name choice. However the principle for burden of proof would be much the same.

Moving forward…

antishock8 states:
I think what you might be getting hung up on is the nature of the positive statement that is being refuted when someone says that you can't prove a negative.

I’ve addressed this above. Your examples were not proof of a negative. The claim was an affirmative claim for zero. One claimed "no money," the other claimed "no paper."

antishock8 states:
If the thing that is being asserted has no certifiable definition, no characteristics, and no location then you're right...

I was not addressing imagination. However, the same rules for burden of proof apply.

antishock8 states:
You can't prove that it doesn't exist because it has no agreed-upon definition so it exists outside reality. In other words you can't prove that a fantasy doesn't exist precisely because it is a fantasy.

This is another and different issue. Your statement is correct. I would say it slightly (or greatly) in a different way. Absent clear, transparent, skeptically reviewed evidence for a claim, the claim should be disregarded.

The burden of proof for a claimed fantasy lies with the one who claims the fantasy. On the negative side, one is not required to attempt any refutation of a claimed fantasy. (As clarified above) One can, however, insist on evidence for the "fantasy" which is claimed.

antishock8 states:
I'm confident that the term, "You can't prove a negative, therefore god exists." is a bit of a non sequitur (because this particular assertion is really what we're addressing).

Well, it’s what some are addressing. I have not been addressing that with regard to your statements about proving a negative. I have been addressing your exact words and your specific examples.

On your above point, such a statement as the quoted one you use as example, it’s a clear attempt by a God pundit to shift the burden of proof to someone else. Unable to establish their claim: “God,” they hope to force an atheist to take up the task of proving a negative.

It fails. The responsibility lies with the one making the God claim to provide that clear, transparent, open to skeptical review evidence for the claim.

antishock8 states:
An argument from ignorance isn't proof in of itself. Just don't confuse an absence-of-evidence-is-evidence-of-absence with an argument from ignorance. The former is valid while the latter is clearly not.

I don’t see the relevance of this observation to the above discussion. I agree with your first sentence. The second sentence appears to be an accusation.

The statements are clichéd and require dissection and analysis.

My response is lengthy thus far, and my time is limited. I’d be happy to respond to this in detail just as I have to the previous part of your post.

Paraphrasing is always risky. I try to avoid it in discussions in which all we have are the words on the screen.

It’s common place for religious pundits to use ambiguous language and spin that language after the fact.

I appreciate that it may appear that a claim for zero might seem to be a negative claim. The examples which you gave, and for which I gave analysis, were not negative claims.

In your previous example:the earth is not square, we may conclude from the affirmative evidence that it is not square. However, the burden of proof was the affirmative claim (implied or stated) that {the earth is round}.

JAK

[_antishock8]

Hi Jak,

Well, since we're not discussing "proving a negative" in a mathematical sense, then the standard is fairly obvious. Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. That's a valid statement. In other words, if I say Jesus doesn't exist, I'm right and my proof is the fact that there is no legitimate proof to corroborate his existence. If someone wants to refute that claim he/she is more than welcome to provide the proof... Until then my "negative statement" stands as a legitimate proof-through-absence.

SO, there are actually a few ways to prove the nonexistence of something:

1) One way is to prove that something cannot exist because it leads to contradictions (married bachelors, triangle circles, etc.).

2) Modus Tollens

3) Absolute absence of evidence

Ok. I think I've made myself clear, and my case is pretty clear, too. If you disagree then you're making your argument from a philosophical point of view that I don't care to understand, nor does it make sense to me.

[_JAK]

Hi Jak,

Well, since we're not discussing "proving a negative" in a mathematical sense, then the standard is fairly obvious. Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. That's a valid statement. In other words, if I say Jesus doesn't exist, I'm right and my proof is the fact that there is no legitimate proof to corroborate his existence. If someone wants to refute that claim he/she is more than welcome to provide the proof... Until then my "negative statement" stands as a legitimate proof-through-absence.

SO, there are actually a few ways to prove the nonexistence of something:

1) One way is to prove that something cannot exist because it leads to contradictions (married bachelors, triangle circles, etc.).

2) Modus Tollens

3) Absolute absence of evidence

Ok. I think I've made myself clear, and my case is pretty clear, too. If you disagree then you're making your argument from a philosophical point of view that I don't care to understand, nor does it make sense to me.

Hi NY

Why the evasion of my analysis? You appear to dodge the opportunity to quote me directly in context and address the issues which I raised and the points which I made.

Why?

Beware the categorical leap to conclusion here.

antishock8 states:
Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

That is correct. However, it is not proof of absence. Consider the time not so long ago when germs were an unknown. From the perspective and information available, there appeared to be no evidence for germs. Hence, absence of evidence. However, we now know about germs (and many other things which were unknown a given number of years ago).

While the statement is correct, it’s about evidence. It’s not about proof.

That recognition leaves the door open (sorry, metaphor) for further discovery of evidence.

Now if we search your wallet for money – a small wallet and full disclosure of what we mean by “money,” absence of evidence of money gets close to or is in fact proof of your affirmative claim. That claim: “I don't have any money in my wallet.”

The example is simple, easy for evidence to be gathered.

antishock8 states:
In other words, if I say Jesus doesn't exist, I'm right and my proof is the fact that there is no legitimate proof to corroborate his existence.

Way too many unknowns in your statement. For example does not exist is different from did not exist. Making the case for the former is easier than making the case for the latter. So, what is meant by the statement? It’s not clear.

On the latter, one might make a case that someone who went around telling stories, preaching, and gaining some converts did exist, that is did live. However making the case that this someone was accurately replicated in exact word and life’s story is a much more difficult if not impossible case to make. (I’m rejecting that blind faith is reliable.)

The evidence for the claims which Christian fundamentalists make (for example) stretches the willing suspension of disbelief beyond any rational assembling of historical data within known time frames.

A question might be: What is legitimate proof to corroborate his existence? By present-day standards for proof, you’re correct. Stories were told. We know from real tests that stories change with the telling. Add to that story telling many times to different people before any attempt to manuscript stories, and then add to that the multiple languages into which the stories have been translated, and we have an unreasonable stretch for willing suspension of disbelief to make a case for historically accurate character.

antishock8 states:
In other words, if I say Jesus doesn't exist, I'm right and my proof is the fact that there is no legitimate proof to corroborate his existence.
[/color]

It’s a risky skate on thin ice. You have no obligation to make such a claim. Why would you make it?

You could argue that available evidence fails to establish a historical character. That is, why assume a burden which is not yours to assume?

A stronger position for the negative is to challenge Jesus claims as those claims get specific and detailed and become aggressive dogma. That is the affirmative claim.

What’s “legitimate proof”? Unless those with whom you argue accept your notion, your definition of that phrase, you are immediately arguing about definitions. There is no benefit to such an argument.

You might wish to do it, but why?

antishock8 states:
SO, there are actually a few ways to prove the nonexistence of something:

One way is to prove that something cannot exist because it leads to contradictions (married bachelors, triangle circles, etc.).

This does not help your case. Here you are taking very familiar terms, well understood, and understood to be a contradiction on the face of the combination. You’re talking about definitions not proof. Once we have clearly defined all four of these terms (two by two as you articulate) we have an internal contradiction. No one would refer to married bachelors without extended definitions or explanation to mitigate the contradiction. Example:He is a bachelor in France, but has a wife in the United States.

Such a construction might be made provided no one in France knows that he has a wife in the United States.

It would be a most convoluted construction. Again, on the face of the terms, we have contradiction. It’s irrelevant to the issue of “proof.”

Second:

antishock8 states:
Modus Tollens

Here we are looking at indirect proof, I think. You’re citing syllogistic construction. It limits the options by fiat.

Example:

Either Jane is at home or she is at school.
Jane is not at home.
Therefore, Jane is at school.

However, it’s restrictive and not open to more input.

The arguments of this form are invalid. (Only the form is valid in the formal use of valid to mean form only.)

Example:

If Jane is an American citizen, she is a human being.
Jane is not an American citizen.
Therefore, Jane is not a human being.

The major premise is irrelevant to the conclusion. That is Jane is a human being regardless of where she has citizenship.

The conclusion is invalid.

antishock8 states:
Absolute absence of evidence

How is that supposed to establish or prove a negative?
Perhaps that’s not what your saying. If it is, it fails to establish or prove a negative.

Rather “absolute absence of evidence” absolutely fails an affirmative proposition which has been stated or implied.

antishock8 states:
Ok. I think I've made myself clear, and my case is pretty clear, too. If you disagree then you're making your argument from a philosophical point of view that I don't care to understand, nor does it make sense to me.

You have made no refutation of my previous posts. You have avoided any direct quotation of my comments in context. It’s the very thing I suggested for clear address of the contents of a post.

Why?

You appear to evade direct address of analysis. Why?

That you think you have made yourself clear does not mean that you have made yourself clear.

You passed the opportunity to address directly my analysis by ignoring it. That does not make you clear.

The clarity above was and is in my rejoinder to your words verbatim.

JAK

[_antishock8]

Here ya go:

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/%22You ... egative%22