On the impossibility of proving a negative

[catsittingstill]

So I was having an argument the other day, and a phrase popped up:

"It is impossible to prove a negative."

At the time I just let it go by.  This phrase pops up a lot in discussions of this type (anything touching on atheism) and it's generally accepted as true and it didn't occur to me to think more deeply about it.  But I was puttering around this morning sweeping the floors and I started thinking about it.

It is impossible to prove a negative.

Let's move it out of knee-jerk territory (at least for many people atheism is knee-jerk territory) and think about some other negatives.

"My plates are not trying to murder me."

"There is not a green unicorn sitting in my lap as I type this."

"The floor will not open up and swallow me when I get up off this chair."

Is it seriously not possible to prove any of these things?  Does the fact that my plates have never tried to murder me before; that I have never heard of plates murdering anyone, that plates have never, in fact, been observed to move of their own accord before as far as I know, much less to move with intent--do those things mean nothing about my plates' current plans with regard to murder?

Well, hmm.  Sometimes something that never happened before happens.  Someone writes a song that never existed before, someone invents something that never existed before...  I guess one can make a case that just because there is no evidence whatsoever that plates have ever murdered anyone or even moved on their own doesn't mean it absolutely can't happen.

So, one could be "aplatistic" on the subject of plates: "I am certain my plates are not trying to murder me."  One could be "platistc" on the subject of plates "I am certain my plates are trying to murder me."  Or one could be "ambiplatistic" on the subject of plates "My plates may be trying to murder me; there is no way for me to be certain."

I suppose one could, technically, make the argument that the ambiplatitisic stance is the only truly correct one.  I mean, if you can't prove that your plates aren't trying to murder you, and you have no evidence that your plates are trying to murder you, then the stance that your plates may be trying to murder you covers both possiblities.

But which one produces more reasonable behavior in real life?  The aplatistic stance would produce the behavior most people (I think) exhibit around plates--we behave as if it never crossed our mind that our plates might try to murder us; we take no precautions whatsoever; we walk through the kitchen without a care, and turn our backs on the plates without a second thought, and handle them with causual, indeed contemptuous, lack of concern.  The platistic stance?  I'm guessing it would involve smashing plates, or possibly banning them from the house.  The ambiplatistic stance--I guess one would tiptoe through the kitchen only when necessary, keeping a wary eye on the plates the whole time.  Or possibly simply ban them from the house, to be on the safe side--though that might be seen as unjust, since there is no evidence that the plates are planning to murder you.

So is it unreasonable to think that a person who smashes her plates to keep them from trying to kill her is...well, psychologically unusual?  Arguably to the point where her ability to live a normal life is compromised?  Is it unreasonable to say that being ambiplatistic--tiptoeing through the kitchen and never turning one's back on one's plates--is silly? 

And if not, does that mean that sometimes it doesn't matter whether or not one can prove a negative?

Comments

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

My plates are trying to murder me. They made a concerted attempt to burn me only this morning but I was too quick for them.

Seriously, the word "prove" is misused all the time. There may not be proof for a universal negative (there can be proof for negatives confined by time or space, such as, "My plates are not jumping out of the cupboard just now,") but there is evidence. Reasonable people usually live their lives based on evidence rather than proof anyway; most things in real life are difficult to prove in formal mathematical terms.

The problem when one tries to translate this into discussions about atheism and religion is that many people do have sensory evidence of the divine. Not necessarily accurate sensory evidence, mind you; but from whatever cause, their brains interpret certain neural firings as a physical sensation of Something There. It's really hard to argue against what someone's own senses are telling them -- just try to explain to a hallucinating person that their skin isn't covered with bugs when they see them and feel them. It's not unreasonable to point out the bugs aren't actually there, but it's a real uphill battle because your empirical sensory evidence and theirs do not match. And most people, not really unreasonably, go by their own in case of conflict.

Exactly why most people's brains do this is unclear; the material I've read on the subject seems to suggest it's probably genetic, but what it was an adaptation for is the subject of much scientific speculation. There are people who are apparently just born without it -- I'm one of them. I come from a line of five generations of atheists on both sides, and as far as I can tell, whatever it is which constitutes a "spiritual sense" in most people is something I don't have. Even in the times of my life when I've tried to be religious, I didn't have the wiring for it.

It can be really hard to talk successfully about a lack of external evidence to someone whose own senses are telling them there is evidence, though.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

*nods* when your weird-stuff-o-meter has been tripped so many times it's missing its peg....

I *understand* that some folks just don't have the wiring. Same as some folks don't have the wiring for poly, or bisexuality. I actually *grok* that latter. Just doesn't happen. All's I really ask is that them as don't allow me to allow for the possibility. What I get cranky about is when folks try to force theology - or lack-of-theology - on other folks. Which is why I support a lack of theology within government - it's easier than universalism, costs less, and tends to offend fewer people.

Sign me,
Shaman for the right of people to be athiest

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

*nod* I neither have a spiritual sense nor an intellectual belief that there's anything there to sense. That's my business. Other people's mileage on both fronts vary, and that is NOT my business. It's not the government's business either.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

Actually? I think it behooves us to understand one's fellow human being, which includes how s/he addresses the world. (Understanding that some folks prefer to keep their religion private is part of that!)

Ditto government, in that government is just people... and you can defend freedom of (from) religion better if you understand it better.

But in both cases understanding != meddling. So in that sense, yes.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

I can understand *that* some people have a spiritual sense. I can even, to some degree, learn the neurology of how it works, insofar as the researchers are starting to find that out and write articles on it. I can't understand *how* a spiritual sense works, from the perspective of the person experiencing it; Cat's analogy of platism is about as close as I can get. So I settle for avoiding meddling and doing my best to keep others from meddling too.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

Works for me.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Which is why I support a lack of theology within government - it's easier than universalism, costs less, and tends to offend fewer people.

I totally agree. A secular government applies the same rules to people of every religion, or no religion, and that seems to me to be the fairest way.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

My plates are trying to murder me. They made a concerted attempt to burn me only this morning but I was too quick for them.

Congratulations on escaping the dastardly plot of the plates. I am glad you're okay.

Reasonable people usually live their lives based on evidence rather than proof anyway; most things in real life are difficult to prove in formal mathematical terms.

Well, yeah, that's what I'm realizing.


Reasonable people usually live their lives based on evidence rather than proof anyway; most things in real life are difficult to prove in formal mathematical terms.

The problem when one tries to translate this into discussions about atheism and religion is that many people do have sensory evidence of the divine.

Well, yes. I don't think it's accurate, and I do think it's heavily influenced by the placebo effect, but there are people with this experience.

It's kind of interesting that Mother Theresa apparently didn't have this experience, as a completely side note.

For some values of divine, *I* even have sensory experience of it. I just don't actually believe it. It was a cool experience and I wouldn't mind having it back again, but I don't actually think it was real.

the material I've read on the subject seems to suggest it's probably genetic

Hmm. I read recently that the tendency to be born-again is about 60% genetic. Twin studies, I think. Perhaps there is some genetic component to "feeling an ecstatic sense of unity with something that can be interpreted as the divine"?

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

Perhaps there is some genetic component to "feeling an ecstatic sense of unity with something that can be interpreted as the divine"?

Yes, that's what it looks like. I do not try to claim, to people who have that experience, that what they're perceiving is a hallucination I don't have rather than a genuine perception that I don't have. I just make it clear that whatever it is, I don't have it.

As for Mother Theresa, I read that she did have a sense of connection with the divine when she was young, and it vanished abruptly before she went to India, and never came back. Didn't slow her down any to lose it, but sure did make her miserable.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Oh. I heard second hand that she didn't have it; didn't realize that it was just that she didn't have it for much of her life but did at one time. Thanks for setting that straight.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

I got it from a newspaper article shortly after her death, based on letters she exchanged with a priest who was her spiritual advisor. So I got it second-hand too, but elaborated and hopefully well-researched. Didn't see the actual letters, though a few were quoted.

By the way, on a different but somewhat related topic, I went to see the Lucy exhibit at the Pacific Science Center today and it was amazing. Thanks so much for posting, a while back, that it was going to be there; that's what got it onto my radar screen.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I'm so glad you got to see it, and that you enjoyed it. I'd have gone if I'd been anywhere near it :-)

[wyld-dandelyon.livejournal.com]

All of our experiences are experienced through our bodies, and in essence, through our neurons. And all are interpreted culturally. With at least half of people experiencing "God" one way or another, it's hard to say, empirically, whether that's an illusion or whether that faculty is simply not available to all people.

As to proof, except in specific defined academic areas, "proof" is simply enough evidence to convince someone that the assertion is true. This makes it very very subjective.

Even moreso when it comes to religion, where there are many people to whom "faith" means believing no matter what evidence might be presented to the contrary. I've also met atheists who would check themselves into mental institutions (or so they have said) before believing even blatant proof like a burning (but unconsumed) bush, should one appear before them.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Well, I'd be mighty confused and interested by a burning but unconsumed bush. I don't know that I'd necessarily take it as proof of anything but itself, though.

I have to admit that "I've gone crazy" would not be my first thought on encountering a weird phenomenon. It would probably take me quite some time to think of that.

[bigbumble.livejournal.com]

The closest I have come to a burning bush is burning, but unconsumed, logs in a natural gas fireplace.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Which did puzzle me some, the first time I realized what I was seeing :-) When I saw the little holes where the gas comes out I figured it out, though.

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

Lawyers prove negatives in court all the time.

Prove that Virgil Timson didn't murder his wife! 1. Virgil Timson has been on the other side of the planet for the last three months; 2. I have here a signed confession from Peanuts Malloy; and 3. If that doesn't convince you, here's Mrs. Timson alive and well. Peanuts Malloy must be even nuttier than the prosecutor.

Of course, the real elephant in the room, from the perspective of a Defendant or an atheist, is that the one asserting the positive tends to have the burden of proof, BECAUSE proof of a negative is more difficult.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Heh, good point.

Though I think if I had 3) I wouldn't confuse the matter by bringing up 2). Just my thought, but I'm guessing that confusing people is bad.

I'm not sure how it works in courtrooms, of course, but I think in general the one making the more extraordinary claim has the burden of proof. If I say "my house is made of wood," and you say "no, it's made of air and springtime," you have the burden of proof; if I say "my house has existed forever" and you say "no, I'm pretty sure it was built at some point and before that it didn't exist" I have the burden of proof. But that's just my take on it.

[bedlamhouse]

Your example doesn't prove a negative, it proves a positive that invalidates the negative. Not the same thing at all.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

That's right.

I had wandered off the subject of proving a negative and was discoursing on the advisability of requiring that the more extraordinary of two conflicting claims should carry the burden of proof.

Which I think is reasonable, but which doesn't address the question of proving a negative.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Oops I thought you were responding to me; lost track of the indents.

However Admnaismith is not proving a positive that *invalidates* the negative, I don't think.

I follow you so far:

Negative: "Virgil Timson did not murder his wife."

Positive: "Virgil Timson's wife is alive."

But the positive doesn't *invalidate* the negative--it *proves* it. At least if I'm following what's going on.

[tfabris.livejournal.com]

Whenever I hear that trope, I hear it as "You can't *dis*prove a negative".

Which, honestly, I never really cared about the details of the logic arguments, because no matter how much someone sets up logic examples (like your plates), the examples never seemed to hold up to me. Of course I can prove your plates aren't trying to murder you. Can I prove they'll never try to murder you? Sure I can. Anything that tries to get into the nitty gritty of a detailed logical argument has to ignore the surrounding facts (plates don't have brains, for example). Those logic puzzles are all well and good, but they're not real-world, they're just us turning over some neurons in our brains in fun ways.

What it comes down to is this: In all areas, there are some things that are provable and testable, and some things that aren't. Some are positives, some are negatives. In theology, it turns out that I can't prove that there's a God or that there isn't a God. All I can do is find evidence, or fail to find evidence, that one of his so-called actions can be caused by natural and observable phenomenon. That's got nothing to do with proving a negative, it's got to do with whether or not I'm testing the existence of something that can't be tested.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Whenever I hear that trope, I hear it as "You can't *dis*prove a negative".

Well. Theoretically at least, you can, by proving the positive that is the opposite of the negative. Suppose I say "dogs can't swim." The opposite positive is "dogs can swim" and you can prove it by bringing in a dog and having it swim across my swiming pool.

Whether or not I will accept the evidence of my own eyes is another issue, of course :-)

Regarding the plates--all we can prove is that we can't *find* brains in plates. It is kind of difficult to prove to someone in a doubting mood that it's even necessary in all cases to have a brain before one can have intent to murder. I mean, I totally believe those things and think that not believing them is silly--but if someone doesn't want it to be proven, I can't prove it.

Regarding theology--I agree that it isn't possible to prove or disprove the existence of an entity that does not interact with the physical world in any measurable way. However, once people start claiming measurable interactions "God cures cancer," for instance--that should be provable. In my opinion, anyway.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

Okay, let's have a go...

What you are describing is not proof as I understand the term to have been used in this kind of discussion in my experience, but something more like "the application of common sense," which--as far as I know--is not the same thing. Also, the negative statements you list are not universally recognised as being of the same order as the statement "I sense the existence of an entity I characterise as God," since they are deliberately selected for ease of disproof (plates, being man-made things, demonstrably possess no consciousness, perception or volition; the floor around your chair is susceptible to examination for instability; if you had a green unicorn in your lap you would probably not be able to reach the keyboard).

There are other, less absurd negatives that you might have cited, such as "there is not an Earth-sized planet occupying the opposite position in Earth's orbit," "there is no Eldritch Temple of Starry Wisdom in Zander's home street," or "John Lennon is not dead." Clearly, if it makes any sense at all, the statement "it is impossible to prove a negative" cannot apply to this kind of proposition.

So what kind of proposition does it apply to? Universal propositions, perhaps, rather than particular ones, and those whose converse is not excluded from possibility on the ground of absurdity. "There are no left-handed Indonesian prostitutes." "There are no other life-bearing planets in the universe." "There are no problems that cannot be solved by the application of common sense."

It may be arguable that it does not matter whether or not one can prove these negatives either, but that, I think, is a subjective judgment and not in any way equivalent to "the negative is automatically true." And to reason from "I do not need to prove that my plates are not trying to kill me" to "I do not need to prove that the sense you have of an entity which you characterise as God is an illusion" is, I think, faulty reasoning based on an incorrect assumption.

Note: as previously stated, I have no such sense.

How's that?

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Also, the negative statements you list are not universally recognised as being of the same order as the statement "I sense the existence of an entity I characterise as God,"

Well, yes. I haven't got to it yet, but part of my world view is that the assertion "God exists" gets all kind of special priveledges that other assertions don't get. Part of that priveledge is that "you can't prove a negative" only seems to come up when the negative is "there is no God." It seems to me that if you can prove a negative (not yet demonstrated to my satisfaction), the remaining possibly still true statement is "You can't prove *some* negatives." It would then be necessary to demonstrate that the nonexistence of God is one of those unprovable negatives to use that argument to shut off discussion.

(plates, being man-made things, demonstrably possess no consciousness, perception or volition; the floor around your chair is susceptible to examination for instability; if you had a green unicorn in your lap you would probably not be able to reach the keyboard

1) I certainly believe that plates have no consciousness, but I can't think how to demonstrate that. How would you go about demonstrating it?

2) I certainly believe that floors only "swallow people up" when there is a serious structural instability in them, and that in all other cases they do not--but I don't see how to prove it. Certainly not with the sort of extraordinary proof people demand for the other statement.

3) It could be a small green unicorn. Then I could reach the keyboard. Or it could be invisible and immaterial, then I could see through it and reach through it. These are the kinds of things people postulate about God when other people make what seem to us "commonsense" objections, so why not the green unicorn too? (Though I should note here that the traditional color for the unicorn is pink. I make no explanation of why I have departed from tradition here, and will not contest charges of heresy as regards the unicorn should anyone choose to raise them.)

Clearly, if it makes any sense at all, the statement "it is impossible to prove a negative" cannot apply to this kind of proposition.

So what kind of proposition does it apply to? Universal propositions, perhaps, rather than particular ones, and those whose converse is not excluded from possibility on the ground of absurdity.

Well, that's the rub. I think there isn't common ground on what everybody finds absurd. I find the idea of Satan controlling biologists to believe in evolution absurd, but I know from previous experience that there are people out there who don't find it absurd at all.

I'm also not sure what makes a proposition universal as opposed to specific. I can see that "there isn't a large, heavy, material, green unicorn in *my* lap" is specific, for instance and "there are no real unicorns" is general, but I perceive a gradient between the two, passing through many degrees of specificity along the way. "There isn't a unicorn in my lap." "There isn't a unicorn in anyone's lap." "No one has ever seen a real unicorn." "Real unicorns don't exist." "Real unicorns don't exist and never have existed." I'm unclear on when something becomes so general a negative that it can't be proven anymore.

And to reason from "I do not need to prove that my plates are not trying to kill me" to "I do not need to prove that the sense you have of an entity which you characterise as God is an illusion" is, I think, faulty reasoning based on an incorrect assumption.

I think that to reason from "I do not need to prove that my plates are not trying to kill me" to "I do not need to prove that your plates are not trying to kill you" to "I don't have to prove that you have no right to smash your plates over my head in 'self-defense'," however, is a pretty logical progression. I don't actually mind people who believe they sense God. I mind that subset of believers who are prejudiced against me because I don't believe. I mind that subset of believers who want to enshrine their platist beliefs into laws against making and owning plates (or their religious beliefs into laws against birth control and abortion).

Which is, I think, pretty much what you mind too.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

I think that to reason from "I do not need to prove that my plates are not trying to kill me" to "I do not need to prove that your plates are not trying to kill you" to "I don't have to prove that you have no right to smash your plates over my head in 'self-defense'," however, is a pretty logical progression.

Of course. But, again, while I am with you as far as that goes, that is not the proposition to which the argument about proving a negative has been applied. If you have no problem with people who simply believe they sense God, but only with people who behave unreasonably in defence of their belief, then the unreasonable behaviour itself is both an easier and a more appropriate target than the belief which is also shared by the innocent.

Conversely, to continue to attempt to discredit that belief (as for instance by trying to establish here that there is no need to disprove it) suggests that your problem, despite what you say, is not exclusively with those who are prejudiced against you, but with all believers whether militant or otherwise. And there we differ.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Conversely, to continue to attempt to discredit that belief (as for instance by trying to establish here that there is no need to disprove it)

You don't think that the original statement "you can't prove a negative" applied to atheism, is an attempt to discredit *my* belief? Why not?

Or, if it is an attempt to discredit my belief, why is it okay for someone else to do it to me, but not okay for me to do it to someone else?

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

Well, what immediately leaps to mind is that I can't imagine someone coming up to you in the street and saying "you can't prove a negative, you know." It's usually offered, I would say, as a response to an attempt to discredit someone else's belief, in which case one might argue that you started it.

But aside from that, the major point that occurs to me is that, while *I* certainly regard atheism as a belief like other beliefs, and therefore worthy of respect to the same degree to which the atheist respects other beliefs, it has frequently been pointed out to me that I am wrong and that atheism is not a matter of belief but of logic. In which case, we have apples over here and oranges over there, and as far as I know there is no reason not to attempt, by means of logic (however flawed), to test a logical proposition. To get upset over that, as one might get upset at an attack on one's beliefs, is...not logical, Captain. :)

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Well, what immediately leaps to mind is that I can't imagine someone coming up to you in the street and saying "you can't prove a negative, you know." It's usually offered, I would say, as a response to an attempt to discredit someone else's belief, in which case one might argue that you started it.

It is not offered out of the blue, but in response to "There is no God." Which is not an attempt to denigrate a theist's belief any more than "God exists," is an attempt to denigrate an atheist's belief.

Right? Same rules for everybody?

If simply stating something that contradicts someone else's belief is denigration, it's just not possible to have any kind of discussion without denigration. In that case I would like to suggest you either give *both* sides a free pass or make *both* sides shut up. In the latter case, the territory will always belong to whoever speaks first, because no one can contradict the speaker.

So supposing that merely disagreeing with someone is not denigration, no matter whether that person is a theist or not, the response "sometimes it does not matter that you can't prove a negative," ALSO doesn't come out of the blue, and is merely disagreeing with someone, so it shouldn't be denigrating either.

it has frequently been pointed out to me that I am wrong and that atheism is not a matter of belief but of logic. In which case, we have apples over here and oranges over there, and as far as I know there is no reason not to attempt, by means of logic (however flawed), to test a logical proposition.

Okay, the logical proposition has been tested by flawed logic, the flaw has been revealed, and the proposition stands. Presumably you will remember not to use that flawed logic again.

In the meantime, let me put it this way--I would like you to apply the same standards, and the same rules of civility, to both theists and atheists. If "there is no god" is uncivil then "god exists" is equally uncivil. I think that is fair.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

You do rather seem to be trying to have it both ways here. I will happily apply the same standards and rules of civility to theists and atheists as long as both acknowledge that they are on an equal footing, i.e. people expressing a belief which is not susceptible to proof within the accepted meaning of the word. "There is no God" and "God exists" are in that view equivalent statements, and treating them alike is entirely fair.

If one side or the other allege that their view is privileged in some way, either by the idiocy of biblical literalism or by maintaining that their belief is a proven fact when it is not, then that is a different state of affairs. I expect that from the other side, which is why I am on this side with you. But, as I have said many times now, I expect my side to play by the rules even if the other side does not. If that is unfair, then so be it.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that you are the one trying to have it both ways. Perhaps further explanation of what you consider "denigration" will help. I offered some examples in the previous comment; perhaps addressing them would help.

I expect my side to play by the rules even if the other side does not.

Please establish the rules then.

I keep getting the impression that the other side is allowed to go around saying "God exists" and "It is impossible to prove a negative" as much as they like but you want me to stop saying "God doesn't exist" and "it is possible to prove some negatives; why do you think it is impossible to prove this one?" (if you accept the plate business as proven) or "it sometimes doesn't matter that it is impossible to prove a negative; why does it matter this time?" (if you accept the plate business as impossible to prove.)

Please explain to me what "denigrating" someone else's belief is? Is it disagreeing with that belief? Directly contradicting it? Saying that holding the belief demonstrates the believer is stupid? Or immoral? Is it saying that the belief itself makes otherwise decent people stupid, or immoral? What?

I need to know exactly what it is you want me to stop doing before I can stop doing just that (provided I am even *willing* to stop just that; I make no guarantees until I know what it is). Leaving it vague leaves me feeling that you're pressuring me to stop expressing my views at all. I realize you probably don't mean it that way, so please explain.

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

Absolute logical proof is only possible in the abstract mathematical realm where we precisely state and agree on the rules ahead of time. In math-land, I can absolutely prove that 2+2=4. I can absolutely prove that there are no even prime numbers larger than 2. It has also been rigorously proven that no map can be drawn that can't be colored with only 4 colors, or that no integers a, b, c, and n, a, b, and c > 0 and n > 2, such that a^n + b^n = c^n (though those proofs are way beyond me). In the realm where it's truly possible to prove anything, it is possible to prove a negative, though it may be more difficult than disproving a negative by providing a counterexample.

In the real world, there are no axioms. There are only working hypotheses and heuristics that we generally agree on, and we often find that when we try to state them exactly we don't agree on them. And there is no truly absolute evidence; all observational data is subject to fallible perceptions and fallible memory. If I interview your plates and they speak and tell me that yes, they are in fact trying to kill you, that doesn't actually prove the platist proposition -- they could be lying, or I could be nuts.

Much more vexing, though, is the fact that human beings don't evaluate and maintain their beliefs through pure logic. We filter evidence that is offered to us based on how it fits with what we already believe and how much we want it to be valid. The more emotionally invested we are in a position, the less likely we are to honestly consider something that appears to contradict our position. And there are few questions that we're more emotionally invested in than the existence and nature of a deity.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Good points, especially the last paragraph.

[musicmutt.livejournal.com]

I actually like what Richard Dawkins has said on the subject; specifically when it comes to the existence or non exixtence of non-corporeal deities. Since you can neither prove nor disprove, empirically, the existence of such things, it ceases to become a question of proof. It then becomes a question of probability. When you work out the likelihood of life on any planet, the odds are stacked well out of favor of living things. However, when all the required conditions are met, life happens. Then work out the likelihood of developing sentient life and the odds become slimmer still. Again, when the need arises in an organism, sentience arises. After that, we reach a point where the odds are so very unlikely it becomes as close to impossible as makes no odds. Ergo, the existence of deities becomes nothing more or less than a question of faith. At this point we are beyond ration, reason or logic. I wouldn't be betting my life on the existence of such deities. It is just too big a gamble.
When we come to the questin of your plates, what do you think would be the likelihood of your plates having invisible brains? If this were the case, I shouldn't be surprised if they had a psychotic need to take out a hit on their owners. I'd be a little nuts, too, if all I had to do was sit in a cupboard and wait for someone to pile hot food in my face.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I'd be a little nuts, too, if all I had to do was sit in a cupboard and wait for someone to pile hot food in my face.

There *is* that. One could even make a case for self-defense, on the plates' part.

[peteralway.livejournal.com]

"It is impossible to prove a negative."
At the time I just let it go by.

Yes, this is one of those preposterous assertions that are stated as fact in many contexts, including accusations of corruption in high office. It's a tiresome fallacy, sometimes used as shorthand for a different, but valid argument, and sometimes in the absence of a valid argument.

We behave as if it never crossed our mind that our plates might try to murder us; we take no precautions whatsoever; we walk through the kitchen without a care, and turn our backs on the plates without a second thought, and handle them with causual, indeed contemptuous, lack of concern.

What a wonderful first sentence for a story!

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

:-) Thanks.

Of course, the story would then have to be about plates that are trying to murder someone, or possibly about dealing with a crazy "platist." Either would be a difficult sell, I think.

[carolf.livejournal.com]

Oh, no! I can easily see this as the first sentence in a "cozy" style mystery, for example. A story in which the mundane and here-to-for unfailingly safe becomes the essential threat.

Or, imagine what a Douglas Adams could do with it!

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

:-) Or Terry Pratchett.

[catalana.livejournal.com]

To a large extent there seems to be a bizarre misunderstanding in the assertion that claims the only kind of proof acceptable is deductive proof. It is true that most of those statements are not deductively provable. The inductive evidence, however, is overwhelming.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Bear with me; I have no formal training in philosophy. Are you saying that it is possible to prove a negative provided inductive proof is allowed?

This might account for my strong feeling that it is possible to prove (indeed, has been proven) that my plates are not trying to murder me. But I'm not quite sure that I'm understanding you correctly.

[jhayman.livejournal.com]

Several recent conversations with a client came to mind that are somewhat relevant. Consider the rumour that someone is pregnant. (Or in my case, that someone has head lice). Truth and evidence have nothing to do with proving that either of these rumours is in error. It's all about _belief_. If the whole school believes that Susy Cheerleader is pregnant, then nothing will break that belief, even the passage of time with no evidence of a pregnancy. Rumour will then believe that the pregnancy was terminated because, after all, EVERYONE knows that Susy was pregnant. No more can we prove that my student doesn't have, and never did have, head lice. EVERYONE knows that she had it and gave it to everyone else. Proof is immaterial.

And that is what you are talking about: a matter of belief as opposed to a matter of proof. The ability of humans beings to hold beliefs in the face of any logic or reason, let alone fact, is quite astounding. It has also been a source of some of the seamier episodes of our past, present and, no doubt, future.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I think I see your point.

[bedlamhouse]

Leave aside the application of the issue to specific philosophical questions.

The problem is that in trying to assert the correctness of a negative statement, most people will use the absence of evidence as the "proof".

1) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Now, this being said, the statement itself is not absolute. Just because you can't prove the negative doesn't mean you can't state that the probability of the negative is low. Your plates are very probably not trying to kill you, this can be induced from the fact that in the recorded history of humanity of which we are aware no one has ever discovered a sentient plate masterminding a criminal plot to murder a person. However, while the probability is so small as to be practically nil, it is not technically nil.

2) Low probability is not logical proof.

3) Lack of logical proof does not imply any level of probability.

Finally, what is considered "evidence" by some is not "evidence" by others. Using your green unicorn as an example, the proper statement would be that I have no way to prove to you that there is not a green unicorn sitting on your lap. If you are under the influence of drugs, paint fumes, or stacks of closing documents that need signing, you might very well see that green unicorn plain as day, and I have no way to prove to you it is not really there.

On a base level, evidence is of itself only a probability - depending on the independent verifiable existence of the evidence (and the acceptance of the independence of the verification) it can be weighted on a scale from true to false.

4) Absolute evidence isn't.


And, lest anyone think that this applies only to abstract philosophical and/or religion/non-religion arguments, I deal every day with people who want me to prove that my products are NOT causing a problem out in the network somewhere. All I can do is prove what my products ARE doing, I can't prove what they don't do without using evidence internal to the product which is, by any definition, biased.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Well, I think in the case of the plates, you can make the case that it doesn't matter that you can't prove a negative because the probability is so low.

Which suggests that "you can't prove a negative" is the sort of thing that should be answered with "true, but sometimes it doesn't matter, and I don't think it matters this time."

I mean, I can't *prove* that M&Ms don't cause tornadoes, but I shouldn't have to.

[bedlamhouse]

The difference SHOULD be that "proof" means you can close your mind, while "low probability" means that you can discount it but you still have to retain a certain openness to the possibility.

Far too many things have been considered low probability simply due to the inability of the current science or imagination to grasp their possibility. Then, when they happen, too much time is wasted while people argue that the negative was already somehow proven.

I submit for your consideration both Global Warming and Quantum Mechanics.


In sum, I use "You can't prove a negative" to try to remind people that the opposite is always possible, no matter how improbable, unless a contradictory truth has been proven. If nothing else, one hopes it prevents smugness.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

The difference SHOULD be that "proof" means you can close your mind, while "low probability" means that you can discount it but you still have to retain a certain openness to the possibility.

But does this mean I should continually bear in mind that my plates may be trying to murder me?

I mean, yeah, it's ridiculous, but I can't *prove* they're not. If I have to keep my mind open to every possiblity I can't disprove, I'm going to be a quivering wreck, afraid to turn my back on my plates, afraid to walk on my floors--I might as well go back to bed and pull the covers up over my head. No wait, I can't be sure the covers aren't planning to strangle me either.

I'm just trying to plan my day here...

[carolf.livejournal.com]

It is curious that this seems to be highly associated with theological discussions. I had always heard it discussed in either pure philosophical terms or as a point of law.

Mind you, I'm not disputing that this argument could arise a lot in lay discussions about religion.

The weird part, to me, is that proof has nothing to do with religion, at all. Religion is all about *faith,* which by definition is to believe in something for which there is no proof (or at least, it hasn't been discovered, yet.)

If it's proven, then faith isn't involved. Merely recognition.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

[Edited for clarfication]

Gotta watch those cups and saucers, the Bowl of the Sentient Chili, and the Plate of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The "project" of theism in many ways resembles on a much larger scale the "project" of artificial intelligence. There have been many interesting by-products, but central questions--in fact some of the same central questions--remain untouched. This might suggest to sensible people that arguing over the central questions is perhaps less important than engaging the related fields that come from the central questions. And fighting wars over unanswered central questions is right out.

[This is the added part] The problem is that if, after all these long centuries, theists haven't proven their case, saying that it hasn't yet been disproven is disingenuous. It hasn't been disproven, of course, but if their theism were valid, surely by now they'd have a better case. And yet the thought and actions thought to be peripheral to the philosophical claims of theism. All the art, all the music, the genuine caring for people, the support for ethical philosophy: these are things worth having and doing. So perhaps a useful attitude to theistic belief is to allow the central problem to remain unsettled.