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 :-)