![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
catsittingstillSo 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?
"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?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-02-28 09:36 pm (UTC)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.