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

[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.