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.
no subject
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.