Can You Prove A Negative?

[_cksalmon]

Well, is anything outside of math and logic provable in the sense you intend??

I don't think the issue is whether a statement is positive or negative (whatever that really means- every statement is the negation of its negation).

As I like to think I've made clear, I also don't think the issue is whether a proposition is grammatically positive or negative.

Well, is anything outside of math and logic provable in the sense you intend??

The sense I intend is the sense you provided. In the sense of being logically entailed from prior propositions? Such as your 1, 2, 3, or 4?

No. Absolutely not. More specifically, I do not believe that the proposition "the Book of Mormon is not a true history" is necessarily true.

Do you?

I believe the proposition "The Book of Mormon is not true" is a true proposition. But, goodness, I don't believe that because it is definitionally (or, if you prefer, necessarily) entailed from prior propositions. I think the preponderance of the evidence points probabilistically in that direction. The issue here is just not about continuous deformations in topological space that leads to homeomorphic identity.

Best.

Chris

[_Mudcat]

I think the poster would have done better by saying..... You can't prove a subjective negative.

For example.
Anything Clinton said in the whole Lewinsky incident, until he cracked at the end due to the insurmountable objective evidence.
example in detail.
"That depends on what 'is' means."

[_Tarski]

Well, is anything outside of math and logic provable in the sense you intend??

I don't think the issue is whether a statement is positive or negative (whatever that really means- every statement is the negation of its negation).

As I like to think I've made clear, I also don't think the issue is whether a proposition is grammatically positive or negative.

Well, is anything outside of math and logic provable in the sense you intend??

The sense I intend is the sense you provided. In the sense of being logically entailed from prior propositions? Such as your 1, 2, 3, or 4?

No. Absolutely not. More specifically, I do not believe that the proposition "the Book of Mormon is not a true history" is necessarily true.

Do you?

I believe the proposition "The Book of Mormon is not true" is a true proposition. But, goodness, I don't believe that because it is definitionally (or, if you prefer, necessarily) entailed from prior propositions. I think the preponderance of the evidence points probabilistically in that direction. The issue here is just not about continuous deformations in topological space that leads to homeomorphic identity.

Best.

Chris

What is the main difference between the following three propositions in terms of "provability in principle"?

1. I am not your father.

2. The Book of Mormon is not a translation of any historical record written on gold plates.

3. There was no global or nearly global flood in Old Testament times.

[Guest]

Well, is anything outside of math and logic provable in the sense you intend??

I don't think the issue is whether a statement is positive or negative (whatever that really means- every statement is the negation of its negation).

As I like to think I've made clear, I also don't think the issue is whether a proposition is grammatically positive or negative.

Well, is anything outside of math and logic provable in the sense you intend??

The sense I intend is the sense you provided. In the sense of being logically entailed from prior propositions? Such as your 1, 2, 3, or 4?

No. Absolutely not. More specifically, I do not believe that the proposition "the Book of Mormon is not a true history" is necessarily true.

Do you?

I believe the proposition "The Book of Mormon is not true" is a true proposition. But, goodness, I don't believe that because it is definitionally (or, if you prefer, necessarily) entailed from prior propositions. I think the preponderance of the evidence points probabilistically in that direction. The issue here is just not about continuous deformations in topological space that leads to homeomorphic identity.

Best.

Chris

What is the main difference between the following three propositions in terms of "provability in principle"?

1. I am not your father.

2. The Book of Mormon is not a translation of any historical record written on gold plates.

3. There was no global or nearly global flood in Old Testament times.

None of these negative propositions is necessarily true.

None of these negative propositions is akin to "6 is not a prime."

Do you believe that the proposition "The Book of Mormon is not true" is a necessarily-true proposition?

That's my point. Do you?

It seems to me quite naïve to conflate necessarily-true mathematical propositions with historical ones, if, indeed, that's what you're doing. But, you haven't spoken to my claim that historico-textual propositions are fundamentally different than mathematically-necessary propositions, so I could be misreading you. If it's simply a very technical battle you wish to win, then I gladly concede defeat: All negations of mathematically-false propositions are necessarily true.

Of course, we're quite far afield here from any sort of discussion of where the burden of proof lies in terms of Book of Mormon's historicity.

Best.

Chris

Chris

[_Tarski]

Well, is anything outside of math and logic provable in the sense you intend??

I don't think the issue is whether a statement is positive or negative (whatever that really means- every statement is the negation of its negation).

As I like to think I've made clear, I also don't think the issue is whether a proposition is grammatically positive or negative.

Well, is anything outside of math and logic provable in the sense you intend??

The sense I intend is the sense you provided. In the sense of being logically entailed from prior propositions? Such as your 1, 2, 3, or 4?

No. Absolutely not. More specifically, I do not believe that the proposition "the Book of Mormon is not a true history" is necessarily true.

Do you?

I believe the proposition "The Book of Mormon is not true" is a true proposition. But, goodness, I don't believe that because it is definitionally (or, if you prefer, necessarily) entailed from prior propositions. I think the preponderance of the evidence points probabilistically in that direction. The issue here is just not about continuous deformations in topological space that leads to homeomorphic identity.

Best.

Chris

What is the main difference between the following three propositions in terms of "provability in principle"?

1. I am not your father.

2. The Book of Mormon is not a translation of any historical record written on gold plates.

3. There was no global or nearly global flood in Old Testament times.

None of these negative propositions is necessarily true.

None of these negative propositions is akin to "6 is not a prime."

Do you believe that the proposition "The Book of Mormon is not true" is a necessarily-true proposition?

That's my point. Do you?

Chris

No, but look; If you take provable in the mathematical sense then there are provable negative propositions.
If you are talking about the empirical, then nothing is absolutely provable anyway.
Take a weaker definition of provable and there are then provable negative propositions again. Such as: "I am am not your father".
Or, "No book that I own is more than 40 inches thick".

No matter how you cut it, the statement that one cannot prove a negative is dubious.

[_antishock8]

I love how, in an effort to keep the possibility of the impossible alive, an apologist just ups and redefines the argument. Shameful.

There is no doubt you can prove a negative. Period. Saying, "You cannot prove a negative." is a non-starter. Since that proposition is clearly demonstrated to be of no use to the apologist now, it's imperative he finds a new avenue to advance his silliness.

"You cannot prove a historico-textual proposition false.", is the newly redefined argument designed to undermine the reality of proving a negative. Notice the nonsensical hyphenated compound word created just for this purpose. Clever? No, but it does play to the apologists in the audience looking for anything that can bolster their faith. So, in that sense, it works...

The apologist then quickly moves the discussion into the arena of philosophy since emprical evidence isn't useful. This is his only recourse, his refuge from sound logic and reason, that continues to allow him to even participate in this discussion. The issue quickly becomes clouded, which is the intent, and the apologists' faith is preserved since nonsense equals confirmation bias in their case.

[_cksalmon]

I love how, in an effort to keep the possibility of the impossible alive, an apologist just ups and redefines the argument. Shameful.

There is no doubt you can prove a negative. Period. Saying, "You cannot prove a negative." is a non-starter. Since that proposition is clearly demonstrated to be of no use to the apologist now, it's imperative he finds a new avenue to advance his silliness.

"You cannot prove a historico-textual proposition false.", is the newly redefined argument designed to undermine the reality of proving a negative. Notice the nonsensical hyphenated compound word created just for this purpose. Clever? No, but it does play to the apologists in the audience looking for anything that can bolster their faith. So, in that sense, it works...

The apologist then quickly moves the discussion into the arena of philosophy since emprical evidence isn't useful. This is his only recourse, his refuge from sound logic and reason, that continues to allow him to even participate in this discussion. The issue quickly becomes clouded, which is the intent, and the apologists' faith is preserved since nonsense equals confirmation bias in their case.

I love how, in an effort to be righteously indignant at the shameful ignorance of others, confirmation bias dictates that you mistake a nevermo for an LDS apologist. That's rich, but I appreciate the chuckle. I especially liked your assertion that "philosophy" is "my refuge from sound logic and reasoning." That statement is a lot of fun, though I'm not sure you intended it to be.

Of course one can prove some negative propositions.

Would you be so kind as to logically demonstrate the truth of the proposition "The Book of Mormon is not a true history." Should be easy, no? I'll start a special thread for the demonstration.

Chris

[_antishock8]

edit: moving my response to the other thread

[Guest]

Oh! Well, this sort of veered off course. I wasn't looking at one claim in particular. Merely I was gently suggesting that the notion that negative propositions are always unprovable is something that is not correct.

I like simple!

CKSalmon is not a woman.

Asbestosman is not a dill pickle.

Scottie is not chained in Liz's dungeon rubbing lotion on it's skin or else it gets the hose.

Tarski is not a beguiling buxom blonde.

Antishock is not wearing garments.

BCSpace is not attending a feminist rally in San Francisco burning bras (at this moment).

Moniker is not a 6 ft tall Mexican spandax wearing wrestler.

LifeOnAPlate is not an evil apostate.

Trevor is not a LDS apologist.

Mudcat is not a feline.

Birds are not dolphins.

Canines are not cold blooded.

This post is not to be found in today's edition of The Wall Street Journal.

I just think of negative propositions in fairly simple terms (I suppose - I'm a fairly simple gal!) and couldn't understand why I see it often stated that negative propositions can not be proven -- I guess we all agree now it is dependent upon the claim?

I understand that the burden of proof should go to those making a claim for Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny as I don't have the ability to disprove these claims -- of course I don't try to as it would be too damn tiring to scour the globe and multiple universes to establish the nonexistence of either, yet, still, there is not a wooly mammoth in my living room.

[_Tarski]

Oh! Well, this sort of veered off course. I wasn't looking at one claim in particular. Merely I was gently

Tarski is not a beguiling buxom blonde.

Take out the "buxom" and we may end up with a debatable proposition. LOL