This can be proven by contradiction: First assume the statement is true, i.e. x = x + 1
Rearrange: x - x = 1 ==> 0 = 1
And we arrive at a contradiction. Therefore the statement x = x + 1 is false and therefore x != x + 1
However, while I have proven a negative I have only done so by disproving a positive. Ergo, you cannot directly prove a negative. I can't think of any other way to prove a negative anyway, I might be incorrect.
What phrase would you suggest people use instead. Although you've proven it to be wrong on a technical basis it is a very useful summarazition of skeptical thinking. There are an infinite number of statements and claims that could never be disproven; psychic phenomena, hauntings, space tea pots, invisible pink unicorns, mermaids, leprachauns... etc. How do you sum that up quickly and effectively with a statement that has as much of a punch to it?
@Toddgpoole 'The arbitrary is outside of rational consideration'.
When somebody makes a statement such as 'reindeer can fly' You ask them for the evidence... since there is none you dismiss it as arbitrary.
When someone claims that 'there is a god' you challenge them to define the entity they claim exists: if they define it then they invariably do so in a self-contradictory way (e.g. 'God is all powerful' - can he make a rock so heavy that he cannot move it? If he can then there is a limit to
... his strength; if he can't then there is a limit to his creative powers.) i.e. whenever 'god' is defined the non-existence of that entity can be easily proven.
If they don't define it then it is arbitrary and can be dismissed without consideration.
'Although you've proven ['you can't prove a negative'] to be wrong on a technical basis it is a very useful summarazition of skeptical thinking.'
if it is wrong then it is not useful - in this case the statement implies constant all-pervading agnosticism... skepticism about any and every fact of existence. The logical end-point of that way of thinking is total abnegation of one's rational faculty, a.k.a. 'nihilism'.
@dannidandannikins I just mean that it is a very simple statement that provokes an immediate and powerful emotional response. I'm trying to come at this from the angle of a advertising agent. Sure, we can explain the product in the commercial, but a good catch phrase gets you more customers.
@Toddgpoole 'it is a very simple statement that provokes an immediate and powerful emotional response' I understand where you're coming from and I think Randi picks up a lot of people who make an honest mistake along those lines. By way of sloganeering I would lean to Hitchen's "that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". Which is absolutely correct and doesn't invite the listener into a bottomless well of epistemological nihilism.
@dannidandannikins That is a really good one. It does a good job of getting that punch to the balls kind of emotional response that I'm looking for. Thanks!
BTW, since you have enjoyed this video and apparently view my approach as having some merit, please have a look at my other channel with a view to subscribing - it has my latest (and will have all my future) philosophical videos and the quality of the content and presentation is much much higher. It's linked on my channel page (StudentOfObjectivism)
your logic is wrong. if you can't prove somthing means that you cannot reach assertion or contradiction, so in your forst board, your YES/NO answers are bad formulated. Because YES, means that it can be proved, as you notice it is false, so, it can't be proved. And NO, means that you find an example in which the hipothesys is false, and you can't find an example. So, it can't be proved.
Please, next time try to read your logic book first, instead of using a wrong pseudologic reasoning. Thanks.
Whoever coined the phrase "You cannot prove a negative", left out the full meaning because they wanted a phrase that would be short and clever. Unfortunately neglecting misinterpretation.
What it really means to say is, "You cannot prove a negative--- in respect to a positive argument". This means...
1.) someone must claim something
2.) another must be skeptical
3.) the claimer is RESPONSIBLE for CONVINCING the skeptic
@futureboy00 Your position makes no sense. You are calling me stupid for not understanding the proposition 'you can't prove a negative'. If you are claiming that that is a proven proposition then you are claiming to have proven the negative that man can't prove negatives... thus refuting your own position. I am sorry to inform you that, in fact, you are the retard. Adieu.
You can prove a negative in some cases, but in the case that randi is trying to make about paranormal things is true. Randi didnt mean "YOU CAN PROVE ANYTHING NEGATIVE EVER" he jst meant that in his line of work, where he is a reputable and reliable source, you can not prove something that is a negative.
There is no life sized pink elephant in my pocket. (Picture me emptying my pockets and finding a $5 bill, a pocketknife and some lint) There is, to no one's surprise, no pink elephant in my pocket. I made a negative statement and disproved it, proving a negative. Had you said, "there is no pink elephant in my pocket" I could have "demanded" that you who are making the claim prove there is a pink elephant in your pocket. You could have demanded that I check your pocket. It is a matter of scale.
(2) The reason you cannot "prove a negative" is that you would need complete evidence against the fact. This is not possible because you would need to cover every possible scenario, including ones you haven't though of.
(1) You're getting lost in semantics. The meaning of the word "not" (cannot) is to negate a statement. The idea that "you cannot prove a negative" is that that so called "negative evidence" (lack of evidence) against something does not constitute evidence for the fact. They're entirely different concepts, even if in terms of language, they're expressed in similar ways. So your point if flawed from the very beginning.
@GoaTseTung Can you prove a positive? In answering, please bear in mind that proving a positive means disproving all contradictory possibilities. e.g. If it is true that at this particular moment you are reading this message on a computer then it is also true that you are not reading it on an i-phone or etched in the side of a tree or any other possibility that I haven't thought of!
@dannidandannikins Instead of answering my question you pose another (unrelated question). If you will not take the time to answer my questions, I will not take the time to answer any more of yours, aside from the two comments already made.
@dannidandannikins TseTung is right. What Mr. Randi meant was that it is impossible to prove an absence of a thing otherwise than pointing out the fact of absence which strangely enough many people don't consider enough proof.
And yes, I can prove a positive. Is there gravity? Yes, there is. And no contradiction is implied.
@IP6000@IP6000 MrRandi claims that you can't prove reindeer can't fly - only that the reindeer you have tested didn't fly. The argument is obtuse: You can prove that flight is self-generated motion through the air and you can prove that it requires certain physiological adaptations that a reindeer doesn't have, thus proving that reindeer can't fly.
I find this whole non-issue boring because your arguments are themselves a negative claim: that man can't prove x.
@dannidandannikins Perhaps mr. Randi's example was not entirely perfect but the point he tried to make is nevertheless correct. Here's a better example: can you prove that there are no green elephants? Your obvious reply would be: "there aren't any because nobody ever saw one etc." which would be a satisfactory argument for mr. Randi and me. But there would always be people claiming that indeed there were green elephants, you just were too dumb to find one. And that's Randi stated problem.
@IP6000 So in order to prove a negative I have to be able to disprove every arbitrary, unsubstantiated claim? That's ridiculous. See why I get bored of this, I explain why I can prove one negative then you just throw out another random one - you're completely concrete bound. ie you refuse to think in principles.
@dannidandannikins A small addition, if I may: you said that one can prove whether or not a reindeer can fly by his physical characteristics (physiology has little to do with it) but the research you do is based on today known and obtainable data. What about other possibilities? Prove to me that reindeer can't fly by generating an anti-gravity field? You can't prove it wrong until you can prove that the anti-gravity as such does not exist. Can you do that?
@dannidandannikins You're patronizing the wrong fella, kid. Gravity is not completely explained or understood to this day, and physicists - true scientists, not wannabes like you - have developed a theory of an existence of particles called "gravitones". Their existence is quite doubtful but nevertheless potentially possible, since the gravity mechanism is still unexplained on quantum level. Nothing of what little is known about gravity scientifically excludes the possibility of anti-gravity.
@dannidandannikins So in conclusion - you don't know what you're talking about. You learned some symplified principle (probably in school) and are now applying it to everything imaginable. All I'm trying to say here is that proving a negative IS possible - but only in conventional terms. I.e. every single thing (or a phenomenon) the existence of which has never been proven does indeed not exist. Reindeer is a bad example because we can examine them. But what about psysics theories, for instance?
Your first point is wrong - a statement can be both true and unprovable.
So it could very well be the case that 'you can't prove a negative' is true, but is also not provable. Thus consistency is maintained.
The bigger mistake you are making is confusing axiomatic deduction with materialistic epistemology. That is what makes your second point fail - you're applying the latter to an axiomatic system.
If someone thinks that negatives can be proven... A simple example would do :)
@dannidandannikins I don't follow how my not reading this in a book constitutes a proof of a negative statement.
It's not nonsense to point out that stating proofs based on axioms is completely different than "proving" any real-world claim such as the existence of Santa or that homeopathy works. One is an absolute framework, the other depends on evidence and inductive reasoning. Completely different animals.
You also didn't aknowledge how I completely demolished your first point ;)
@dannidandannikins I now figured out what you were trying to do with your example. Very nice. Can you do this with statements that are not self-referential? Self-reference and circular logic only gets one so far when dealing with real-world epistemology.
@Polymeron re your first point 'a statement can be both true and unprovable.' I did not acknowledge this because I make it a policy of not responding to arbitrary claims. If something is true but unprovable, how do you know it is true? blank out.
'Can you do this with statements that are not self-referential?' Like I said, your argument is simply the supposed analytic-synthetic dichotomy... which is just nonsense.
@dannidandannikins If you do not accept statements that are not mathematically proven, you have zero knowledge about the real world. Everything depends on assumptions. And of course some things are not provable in any consistent system, a-la Godel's incompleteness theorem. Which IS proven.
The distinction I am making is between axiomatic systems, which are POSITED, and real systems, which are OBSERVED. If this distinction is nonsense, it is up to you to explain why.
@Polymeron 'The distinction I am making is between axiomatic systems, which are POSITED, and real systems, which are OBSERVED. If this distinction is nonsense, it is up to you to explain why.' That is almost word for word the same as Peikoff's description of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy - which is the essence of your complaint as I have been saying all along. I'm not going to try to explain the flaws in that dichotomy in 500 character comment boxes, I'm just gonna tell you it's ridiculous.
@dannidandannikins Then you have ended the discussion. While I won't hold you to the standard of explaining complex philosophical arguments in short comments, I also cannot accept your framing of it as "ridiculous". It may be that the distinction is immaterial, but it certainly isn't insignificant or obviously false. So "ridiculous" doesn't describe it well.
@dannidandannikins I wasn't really referring to the criminal law, i expressed my question wrongly. It's more the philosophical burden of proof. Let's just take the example of a christian saying to an atheist that he has to prove that god doesn't exist. I mean, if the atheist can't say:"I can't prove a negative" what happen and who have the burden of proof. Thank you in advance.
@Davidbasque15 good question - like i've said elsewhere I intend to make a new version of this video to clarify this issue (I have a lot of videos planned but am busy so I don't know when I'll make it). Basically, when it comes to god you have to first ask 'what is god?' the theist will invariably fail to define 'god'. He might say 'god is the creator of the universe - thus stating one of the things god is supposed to have done but not what god actually is. Or he will say god is infinite [cont]
[cont] which is the opposite of a definition since to define something is to define its limits - saying it is unlimited means nothing. (in fact it is worse than that, saying that god is infinite means that god is not limited by the law of identity... which is a contradiction of the most fundamental law of logic, 'A is A').
Since god is never defined it is wrong to even try and disprove it - the idea belongs in the realm of the arbitrary - which means it has no relation at all to reality, [cont]
eg. The statement 'Dan speaks perfect Japanese' is wrong - but the referents are all definable and everything in the sentence pertains to reality. 'Unicorns jazzenked the besticle' is a collection of arbitrary nonsense with no contact to reality - it is neither right nor wrong, just meaningless since the words are undefined. All statements about 'God' (which is undefinable) are similarly nonsensical, even the statement 'there is no god'.
"If not provable then it is an arbitrary statement and therefore meaningless."
Statements such as "pizza is delicious" cannot be proven true as they are opinions. They are false for some, true for others. Are you saying that opinions are meaningless?
@holodenier2011 Such a phrase means 'I like pizza' which obviously can be proven true by watching a person enjoy eating it. If he claims that pizza is delicious to everyone then he clearly can be proven wrong by finding a person that doesn't like pizza. Your objection is highly rationalistic and, frankly, a bit silly.
The statement made by James Randi does not imply that we cannot have any knowledge at all, but that we cannot have absolute knowledge of everything. In his talk he mentions testing reindeer to see if they can fly and wonders how many you would have to test to prove irrefutably that reindeer cannot fly. The answer is actually simple. You have to test every reindeer that has ever existed under every possible set of conditions. You have to be omniscient. You CAN say such a thing is very unlikely.
@mannonc I know that that is what he says... he is wrong. TBF to you, this video was made as a general video and then I just sent it as a response to him. I should probably do a more specific response to his argument.
I fucking love this. Thanks for posting it. I've been baffled by people saying "You can't prove a negative". It's all semantics. You can state anything in a positive or negative way.
You can not prove that something is not. That is not a negative statement my friend. Really break it down...
It's a double negative which makes it a positive statement. -1 x -1 = +1
Also related to what you explore in your second point, it a consistant inverse of "I can prove that something is" = "I can not prove that something is not."
Otherwise a very well thought out argument, your second point depends on your first point which is incorrect.
@nimisp4000 Your comment is highly rationalistic. Let's take Randi's actual example 'you can't prove that reindeer can't fly'. That is not a double negative since the negatives have different referents: one pertains to the verb 'prove' and the other applies to the proposition 'reindeer can't fly'.
A double negative would be 'It's not the case that you can't prove that reindeer can fly' =>'you can prove that reindeer can fly'
@nimisp4000 Also, it is the conclusion that is positive. Not the statement itself. Even if it is -1 + - 1 = -2. As you can see it is a negative answer, it is positive in the fact that it is correct.
@dannidandannikins Fine. I just read your comments on your channel and I have to disagree with you thoughts on pure capitalism. I'm scottish and now live in the US, I just wonder if you have ever been here. Rampant Capitalism as exists here means that most american cities are run down verging on dangerous as all commerce has been sucked out to soulless stripmalls.corporates have armies of part time slaves. I'm no socialist but it has to be reigned in. you are young you will learn.
@cullyvan America does not have anything near 'rampant capitalism', especially now. I haven't been to America but I know enough of her politics and have enough understanding of economics to say that with absolute confidence.
@cullyvan I don't trust you. Capitalism is a system in which the initiation of force is legally prohibited by a government that wields force only in retaliation; a system in which men deal with one another only by trade on the basis of mutual agreement. In America, as with everywhere else in the world, such a system does not exist. For proof of that read through her tax code - which Einstein regarded as indecipherable - or consider her drug laws or her business regulations, etc.
This is only taking a sentence of Randi out of context, because Randi is not speaking about mathematical proofs based on axioms; he is speaking about empirical proofs of inexistence, i.e. propositions which say that something will not observe in reality. This proposition are not provable since empirical induction, is not a logical method for proving thing.
So, you are aplying his sentences to a context he is not speaking about, which is empirical world. And unprovable, doesn't imply arbitrary.
@PattonyNapoleon actually i made this before seeing randi's video. You are right that I haven't addressed his critiques of induction in this video but profoundly wrong when you state that induction is inadequate for acquiring knowledge. I have been thinking for a while of making an updated version of this video to be more of a direct response to Randi. This video was only posted as a response to his video as an afterthought.
The statement that you cannot prove a negative obviously can't be proven. But why is any unprovable statement ""an arbitrary statement and therefore meaningless"? If I say bigfoot doesn't exist, is that statement arbitrary and meaningless? Provability and veracity are two very different qualities. In fact, Kurt Gödel actually proved that if you prove that you can't prove something, you can subsequently prove anything you can imagine. Weird but true.
The context of the inability to prove a negative has been misunderstood here and wrapped in a lot of semantics. The statement refers to negative proof. None of the examples in the video are examples of the "argument from ignorance."
Example: God's existence cannot be proven false. God's non-existence is a negative that cannot be proven. However, because his non-existence cannot be proven doesn't mean he exists. To believe so is believing in negative evidence, ie. proof of a negative.
You may not be able to practically prove a negative in _all_ cases, but it is irrational to believe that the negative is automatically untrue because of this. And besides, I can easily prove that my glass is NOT full of water ;)
I know that Rand has said 'you cannot prove a negative'. I know you think she is a genius, and because I am keen for you to distance yourself from objectivist (assumptions & obscurantism) I point this out.
@efghijkl8 you're mistaken. she said that you 'cannot be called upon to prove a negative'. i.e. that one cannot be called upon to prove that an arbitrary assertion is false since the fact of it being arbitrary means, by definition, that it has no relation to reality and is thus not worthy of consideration.
good premises.
p.s. I don't care that you think I am making assertions. You have rejected induction which means that your entire epistemology is based on assertions, so why should I listen?
@lordthawkeye Yeah it means that proving a negative (something non-existent) is meaningless and illogical. It doesn't imply that a negative might be true since it doesn't exist.
You can prove a negative by illustrating ontological contradictions ie you cant have square-circles. It goes against its ontological definition. I dont understand why you had to draw triangles and its internal degrees to explain this false conception thats overstated by theists: "you cant prove god doesnt exist" when you could simply state a sentence to debunk this myth like i did. Heres an interesting question, when an epistemological nihilist says knowledge doesnt exist, is he lying?
Although you CAN prove a negative, one does not always know whether the answer is actually more ambigious then one that can be answered with a yes or no answer.
@dannidandannikins Is the answer to every question yes or no? If the answer to every question is not yes or no, there may be some grey areas. Some concepts such as current unproveables (such as membrane theory I guess, but don't quote me on that) may remain hypothetical, or hypothetical until such a time as further information is gathered by experiment, However some answers just remain in a state of ambiguity, and at times, extreeme complexity to the point whereby attemts at explanation.....
@BespokeGroupUK ...... only serve to muddy the waters and create distorted images of what is real or true for any particular complex state of affairs, such as abstract concepts such as "the atheist community" for instance.
@BespokeGroupUK 'Is the answer to every question yes or no?'
Yes.
In some cases we may not yet have the information necessary to identify the correct answer, but fundamentally every hypothesis boils down to 'true' or 'false' (existence or non-existence, valid or invalid theory).
@MexxPowers correct, one needs a basis of knowledge. Ultimately that comes down to the axiom that existence exists - which is undeniable since denying it requires you to claim that you don't exist. It implies two further axioms: identity exists and consciousness exists. To deny these one would have to deny either that one has identity or that one has consciousness - but the act of declaring your opposition to these axioms confirms that you have identity and are conscious.
How would we know there are no pixies flying around in the woods every night ?
Because there is no evidence for them. As soon as you get the evidence all else follows. Offcourse there are problems, but should I better said; One can't prove THIS negative ?
A major problem I heard of was with the evidence for gravitation.(dont get me started I am not a physiscian) Yet we
@MexxPowers Yes you can. See my video series ''belief in god is a lie and a deliberate act of evil'.
What you are attempting to do is to defend the arbitrary - you are saying that since god by definition is completely undetectable the lack of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, it is proof that there is no rational basis for your belief and therefore proof that claiming to know of his existence or plausible existence is completely arbitrary.
I will leave that question open. I would indeed be foolish of me to say that lack of evidence is evidence of absence. I am willing to admite I have no rational
basis for my beliefs. It just seems more plausible to me. If that is proof of his exsistence so be it. But so do elves and unicorns then. I think occam's razor and Hume's plausebility question is key here.
@MexxPowers "This the problem with the God hypothsis, you cannot disprove God."
Sure you can, if you define God as "omniscient" or "omnipresent" or any other such nonsense. In other words, if you are talking about anything "supernatural," then such a claim can be disproved by making logical inferences from other known facts of reality.
If I make a claim x != x + 1 for all x
This can be proven by contradiction: First assume the statement is true, i.e. x = x + 1
Rearrange: x - x = 1 ==> 0 = 1
And we arrive at a contradiction. Therefore the statement x = x + 1 is false and therefore x != x + 1
However, while I have proven a negative I have only done so by disproving a positive. Ergo, you cannot directly prove a negative. I can't think of any other way to prove a negative anyway, I might be incorrect.
rulz492 1 month ago
What phrase would you suggest people use instead. Although you've proven it to be wrong on a technical basis it is a very useful summarazition of skeptical thinking. There are an infinite number of statements and claims that could never be disproven; psychic phenomena, hauntings, space tea pots, invisible pink unicorns, mermaids, leprachauns... etc. How do you sum that up quickly and effectively with a statement that has as much of a punch to it?
Toddgpoole 2 months ago
@Toddgpoole 'The arbitrary is outside of rational consideration'.
When somebody makes a statement such as 'reindeer can fly' You ask them for the evidence... since there is none you dismiss it as arbitrary.
When someone claims that 'there is a god' you challenge them to define the entity they claim exists: if they define it then they invariably do so in a self-contradictory way (e.g. 'God is all powerful' - can he make a rock so heavy that he cannot move it? If he can then there is a limit to
dannidandannikins 2 months ago
... his strength; if he can't then there is a limit to his creative powers.) i.e. whenever 'god' is defined the non-existence of that entity can be easily proven.
If they don't define it then it is arbitrary and can be dismissed without consideration.
dannidandannikins 2 months ago
'Although you've proven ['you can't prove a negative'] to be wrong on a technical basis it is a very useful summarazition of skeptical thinking.'
if it is wrong then it is not useful - in this case the statement implies constant all-pervading agnosticism... skepticism about any and every fact of existence. The logical end-point of that way of thinking is total abnegation of one's rational faculty, a.k.a. 'nihilism'.
dannidandannikins 2 months ago
@dannidandannikins I just mean that it is a very simple statement that provokes an immediate and powerful emotional response. I'm trying to come at this from the angle of a advertising agent. Sure, we can explain the product in the commercial, but a good catch phrase gets you more customers.
Toddgpoole 1 month ago
@Toddgpoole 'it is a very simple statement that provokes an immediate and powerful emotional response' I understand where you're coming from and I think Randi picks up a lot of people who make an honest mistake along those lines. By way of sloganeering I would lean to Hitchen's "that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". Which is absolutely correct and doesn't invite the listener into a bottomless well of epistemological nihilism.
dannidandannikins 1 month ago
@dannidandannikins That is a really good one. It does a good job of getting that punch to the balls kind of emotional response that I'm looking for. Thanks!
Toddgpoole 1 month ago
@Toddgpoole Lol
BTW, since you have enjoyed this video and apparently view my approach as having some merit, please have a look at my other channel with a view to subscribing - it has my latest (and will have all my future) philosophical videos and the quality of the content and presentation is much much higher. It's linked on my channel page (StudentOfObjectivism)
dannidandannikins 1 month ago
your logic is wrong. if you can't prove somthing means that you cannot reach assertion or contradiction, so in your forst board, your YES/NO answers are bad formulated. Because YES, means that it can be proved, as you notice it is false, so, it can't be proved. And NO, means that you find an example in which the hipothesys is false, and you can't find an example. So, it can't be proved.
Please, next time try to read your logic book first, instead of using a wrong pseudologic reasoning. Thanks.
simplewebportal 5 months ago
Thank you!!!
crislocs123 5 months ago
Okay, here's my thoughts on the matter...
Whoever coined the phrase "You cannot prove a negative", left out the full meaning because they wanted a phrase that would be short and clever. Unfortunately neglecting misinterpretation.
What it really means to say is, "You cannot prove a negative--- in respect to a positive argument". This means...
1.) someone must claim something
2.) another must be skeptical
3.) the claimer is RESPONSIBLE for CONVINCING the skeptic
You just forgot step one.
CaptStormwind 8 months ago
worst video evar
futureboy00 8 months ago
@futureboy00 Worst attempt to be cool by spelling unconventionally evar.
dannidandannikins 8 months ago
@dannidandannikins you are still a retard for not understanding that you can't prove a negative
durr... hurr... derp...
futureboy00 8 months ago
@futureboy00 Your position makes no sense. You are calling me stupid for not understanding the proposition 'you can't prove a negative'. If you are claiming that that is a proven proposition then you are claiming to have proven the negative that man can't prove negatives... thus refuting your own position. I am sorry to inform you that, in fact, you are the retard. Adieu.
dannidandannikins 8 months ago 2
@dannidandannikins ok,..lesson nr 1: learn the meaning of the word "negative",...when it come to proving things,...
velardur 8 months ago
You can prove a negative in some cases, but in the case that randi is trying to make about paranormal things is true. Randi didnt mean "YOU CAN PROVE ANYTHING NEGATIVE EVER" he jst meant that in his line of work, where he is a reputable and reliable source, you can not prove something that is a negative.
Ninjasanddoobies 8 months ago
There is no life sized pink elephant in my pocket. (Picture me emptying my pockets and finding a $5 bill, a pocketknife and some lint) There is, to no one's surprise, no pink elephant in my pocket. I made a negative statement and disproved it, proving a negative. Had you said, "there is no pink elephant in my pocket" I could have "demanded" that you who are making the claim prove there is a pink elephant in your pocket. You could have demanded that I check your pocket. It is a matter of scale.
MrTHLawrence 9 months ago
i always hated this line of reasoning... it's like saying "i always lie"... language is not math :)
PROdotes 9 months ago
(2) The reason you cannot "prove a negative" is that you would need complete evidence against the fact. This is not possible because you would need to cover every possible scenario, including ones you haven't though of.
GoaTseTung 10 months ago
(1) You're getting lost in semantics. The meaning of the word "not" (cannot) is to negate a statement. The idea that "you cannot prove a negative" is that that so called "negative evidence" (lack of evidence) against something does not constitute evidence for the fact. They're entirely different concepts, even if in terms of language, they're expressed in similar ways. So your point if flawed from the very beginning.
GoaTseTung 10 months ago
@GoaTseTung Can you prove a positive? In answering, please bear in mind that proving a positive means disproving all contradictory possibilities. e.g. If it is true that at this particular moment you are reading this message on a computer then it is also true that you are not reading it on an i-phone or etched in the side of a tree or any other possibility that I haven't thought of!
dannidandannikins 10 months ago
@dannidandannikins Instead of answering my question you pose another (unrelated question). If you will not take the time to answer my questions, I will not take the time to answer any more of yours, aside from the two comments already made.
GoaTseTung 10 months ago
@dannidandannikins TseTung is right. What Mr. Randi meant was that it is impossible to prove an absence of a thing otherwise than pointing out the fact of absence which strangely enough many people don't consider enough proof.
And yes, I can prove a positive. Is there gravity? Yes, there is. And no contradiction is implied.
IP6000 9 months ago
@IP6000 @IP6000 MrRandi claims that you can't prove reindeer can't fly - only that the reindeer you have tested didn't fly. The argument is obtuse: You can prove that flight is self-generated motion through the air and you can prove that it requires certain physiological adaptations that a reindeer doesn't have, thus proving that reindeer can't fly.
I find this whole non-issue boring because your arguments are themselves a negative claim: that man can't prove x.
dannidandannikins 9 months ago
@dannidandannikins Perhaps mr. Randi's example was not entirely perfect but the point he tried to make is nevertheless correct. Here's a better example: can you prove that there are no green elephants? Your obvious reply would be: "there aren't any because nobody ever saw one etc." which would be a satisfactory argument for mr. Randi and me. But there would always be people claiming that indeed there were green elephants, you just were too dumb to find one. And that's Randi stated problem.
IP6000 9 months ago
@IP6000 So in order to prove a negative I have to be able to disprove every arbitrary, unsubstantiated claim? That's ridiculous. See why I get bored of this, I explain why I can prove one negative then you just throw out another random one - you're completely concrete bound. ie you refuse to think in principles.
dannidandannikins 9 months ago
@dannidandannikins A small addition, if I may: you said that one can prove whether or not a reindeer can fly by his physical characteristics (physiology has little to do with it) but the research you do is based on today known and obtainable data. What about other possibilities? Prove to me that reindeer can't fly by generating an anti-gravity field? You can't prove it wrong until you can prove that the anti-gravity as such does not exist. Can you do that?
IP6000 9 months ago
@IP6000 gravity = fact of reality. anti-gravity field = anti-reality field. anti-reality = not real.
stop asking dumb questions.
dannidandannikins 9 months ago
@dannidandannikins You're patronizing the wrong fella, kid. Gravity is not completely explained or understood to this day, and physicists - true scientists, not wannabes like you - have developed a theory of an existence of particles called "gravitones". Their existence is quite doubtful but nevertheless potentially possible, since the gravity mechanism is still unexplained on quantum level. Nothing of what little is known about gravity scientifically excludes the possibility of anti-gravity.
IP6000 8 months ago
@dannidandannikins So in conclusion - you don't know what you're talking about. You learned some symplified principle (probably in school) and are now applying it to everything imaginable. All I'm trying to say here is that proving a negative IS possible - but only in conventional terms. I.e. every single thing (or a phenomenon) the existence of which has never been proven does indeed not exist. Reindeer is a bad example because we can examine them. But what about psysics theories, for instance?
IP6000 8 months ago
@GoaTseTung *of which I haven't thought.
dannidandannikins 10 months ago
Your first point is wrong - a statement can be both true and unprovable.
So it could very well be the case that 'you can't prove a negative' is true, but is also not provable. Thus consistency is maintained.
The bigger mistake you are making is confusing axiomatic deduction with materialistic epistemology. That is what makes your second point fail - you're applying the latter to an axiomatic system.
If someone thinks that negatives can be proven... A simple example would do :)
Polymeron 11 months ago
@Polymeron 'If someone thinks that negatives can be proven... A simple example would do :)'
You are not reading this information in a book. Proven.
All the rest of your comment is basically analytic-synthetic dichotomy nonsense.
dannidandannikins 11 months ago
@dannidandannikins I don't follow how my not reading this in a book constitutes a proof of a negative statement.
It's not nonsense to point out that stating proofs based on axioms is completely different than "proving" any real-world claim such as the existence of Santa or that homeopathy works. One is an absolute framework, the other depends on evidence and inductive reasoning. Completely different animals.
You also didn't aknowledge how I completely demolished your first point ;)
Polymeron 11 months ago
@dannidandannikins I now figured out what you were trying to do with your example. Very nice. Can you do this with statements that are not self-referential? Self-reference and circular logic only gets one so far when dealing with real-world epistemology.
Polymeron 11 months ago
@Polymeron re your first point 'a statement can be both true and unprovable.' I did not acknowledge this because I make it a policy of not responding to arbitrary claims. If something is true but unprovable, how do you know it is true? blank out.
'Can you do this with statements that are not self-referential?' Like I said, your argument is simply the supposed analytic-synthetic dichotomy... which is just nonsense.
dannidandannikins 11 months ago
@dannidandannikins If you do not accept statements that are not mathematically proven, you have zero knowledge about the real world. Everything depends on assumptions. And of course some things are not provable in any consistent system, a-la Godel's incompleteness theorem. Which IS proven.
The distinction I am making is between axiomatic systems, which are POSITED, and real systems, which are OBSERVED. If this distinction is nonsense, it is up to you to explain why.
Polymeron 11 months ago
@Polymeron 'The distinction I am making is between axiomatic systems, which are POSITED, and real systems, which are OBSERVED. If this distinction is nonsense, it is up to you to explain why.' That is almost word for word the same as Peikoff's description of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy - which is the essence of your complaint as I have been saying all along. I'm not going to try to explain the flaws in that dichotomy in 500 character comment boxes, I'm just gonna tell you it's ridiculous.
dannidandannikins 11 months ago
@dannidandannikins Then you have ended the discussion. While I won't hold you to the standard of explaining complex philosophical arguments in short comments, I also cannot accept your framing of it as "ridiculous". It may be that the distinction is immaterial, but it certainly isn't insignificant or obviously false. So "ridiculous" doesn't describe it well.
Best of luck to you.
Polymeron 11 months ago
@Polymeron what you are asking me to do is to prove something without reference to reality!
dannidandannikins 11 months ago
In this video I feel like you play a lot on the words; I'm just wondering what you think about the burden of proof?
Davidbasque15 11 months ago
@Davidbasque15 You mean in a criminal law? the burden rests with the prosecution, obviously.
dannidandannikins 11 months ago
@dannidandannikins I wasn't really referring to the criminal law, i expressed my question wrongly. It's more the philosophical burden of proof. Let's just take the example of a christian saying to an atheist that he has to prove that god doesn't exist. I mean, if the atheist can't say:"I can't prove a negative" what happen and who have the burden of proof. Thank you in advance.
Davidbasque15 11 months ago
@Davidbasque15 good question - like i've said elsewhere I intend to make a new version of this video to clarify this issue (I have a lot of videos planned but am busy so I don't know when I'll make it). Basically, when it comes to god you have to first ask 'what is god?' the theist will invariably fail to define 'god'. He might say 'god is the creator of the universe - thus stating one of the things god is supposed to have done but not what god actually is. Or he will say god is infinite [cont]
dannidandannikins 11 months ago
[cont] which is the opposite of a definition since to define something is to define its limits - saying it is unlimited means nothing. (in fact it is worse than that, saying that god is infinite means that god is not limited by the law of identity... which is a contradiction of the most fundamental law of logic, 'A is A').
Since god is never defined it is wrong to even try and disprove it - the idea belongs in the realm of the arbitrary - which means it has no relation at all to reality, [cont]
dannidandannikins 11 months ago
[cont] not even the dubious honor of being wrong.
eg. The statement 'Dan speaks perfect Japanese' is wrong - but the referents are all definable and everything in the sentence pertains to reality. 'Unicorns jazzenked the besticle' is a collection of arbitrary nonsense with no contact to reality - it is neither right nor wrong, just meaningless since the words are undefined. All statements about 'God' (which is undefinable) are similarly nonsensical, even the statement 'there is no god'.
dannidandannikins 11 months ago
@dannidandannikins I like your approach! Thank you very much for your time.
Davidbasque15 11 months ago
"If not provable then it is an arbitrary statement and therefore meaningless."
Statements such as "pizza is delicious" cannot be proven true as they are opinions. They are false for some, true for others. Are you saying that opinions are meaningless?
holodenier2011 1 year ago
@holodenier2011 Such a phrase means 'I like pizza' which obviously can be proven true by watching a person enjoy eating it. If he claims that pizza is delicious to everyone then he clearly can be proven wrong by finding a person that doesn't like pizza. Your objection is highly rationalistic and, frankly, a bit silly.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
The statement made by James Randi does not imply that we cannot have any knowledge at all, but that we cannot have absolute knowledge of everything. In his talk he mentions testing reindeer to see if they can fly and wonders how many you would have to test to prove irrefutably that reindeer cannot fly. The answer is actually simple. You have to test every reindeer that has ever existed under every possible set of conditions. You have to be omniscient. You CAN say such a thing is very unlikely.
mannonc 1 year ago
@mannonc I know that that is what he says... he is wrong. TBF to you, this video was made as a general video and then I just sent it as a response to him. I should probably do a more specific response to his argument.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@3:30
C^trillion (*not billion as you said).
scout6686 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I fucking love this. Thanks for posting it. I've been baffled by people saying "You can't prove a negative". It's all semantics. You can state anything in a positive or negative way.
robopoet 1 year ago
Comment removed
robopoet 1 year ago
You can not prove that something is not. That is not a negative statement my friend. Really break it down...
It's a double negative which makes it a positive statement. -1 x -1 = +1
Also related to what you explore in your second point, it a consistant inverse of "I can prove that something is" = "I can not prove that something is not."
Otherwise a very well thought out argument, your second point depends on your first point which is incorrect.
nimisp4000 1 year ago 6
@nimisp4000 Your comment is highly rationalistic. Let's take Randi's actual example 'you can't prove that reindeer can't fly'. That is not a double negative since the negatives have different referents: one pertains to the verb 'prove' and the other applies to the proposition 'reindeer can't fly'.
A double negative would be 'It's not the case that you can't prove that reindeer can fly' =>'you can prove that reindeer can fly'
dannidandannikins 1 year ago 2
@nimisp4000 Also, it is the conclusion that is positive. Not the statement itself. Even if it is -1 + - 1 = -2. As you can see it is a negative answer, it is positive in the fact that it is correct.
Not meaning to argue, just adding to debate.
theeviltwig 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nimisp4000
"I can prove that something is blue." = "I can not prove that something is not blue."
According to this year-old post.
When dealing in generalizations, it is smart to test their validity on specifics.
Kikarok 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Libreal democracies as most european countries are exist for a reason. It balances both extremes. anyway, enjoy Japan. Beautiful country.
cullyvan 1 year ago
this is a sophist argument. they really annoy me.
cullyvan 1 year ago
@cullyvan may I ask for a clarification. Whom are you accusing of sophistry, myself or the people who say that one cannot prove a negative?
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins I'll let you work it out.
cullyvan 1 year ago
@cullyvan ok, well your comment is just an assertion anyway so I'm not going to give it another thought.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins Fine. I just read your comments on your channel and I have to disagree with you thoughts on pure capitalism. I'm scottish and now live in the US, I just wonder if you have ever been here. Rampant Capitalism as exists here means that most american cities are run down verging on dangerous as all commerce has been sucked out to soulless stripmalls.corporates have armies of part time slaves. I'm no socialist but it has to be reigned in. you are young you will learn.
cullyvan 1 year ago
@cullyvan America does not have anything near 'rampant capitalism', especially now. I haven't been to America but I know enough of her politics and have enough understanding of economics to say that with absolute confidence.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins trust me , you dont. You should know enough about travel by now to know you cant get it from the TV and books.
cullyvan 1 year ago
@cullyvan I don't trust you. Capitalism is a system in which the initiation of force is legally prohibited by a government that wields force only in retaliation; a system in which men deal with one another only by trade on the basis of mutual agreement. In America, as with everywhere else in the world, such a system does not exist. For proof of that read through her tax code - which Einstein regarded as indecipherable - or consider her drug laws or her business regulations, etc.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins you need to lighten up. Bye.
cullyvan 1 year ago
@cullyvan and you need to be more serious. Adieu.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
... Isn't your argument the definition of a fallacy?
Enigma542 1 year ago
@Enigma542 no
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins It just sounds like an infinite loop. But if you say so.
Enigma542 1 year ago
This is only taking a sentence of Randi out of context, because Randi is not speaking about mathematical proofs based on axioms; he is speaking about empirical proofs of inexistence, i.e. propositions which say that something will not observe in reality. This proposition are not provable since empirical induction, is not a logical method for proving thing.
So, you are aplying his sentences to a context he is not speaking about, which is empirical world. And unprovable, doesn't imply arbitrary.
PattonyNapoleon 1 year ago
@PattonyNapoleon actually i made this before seeing randi's video. You are right that I haven't addressed his critiques of induction in this video but profoundly wrong when you state that induction is inadequate for acquiring knowledge. I have been thinking for a while of making an updated version of this video to be more of a direct response to Randi. This video was only posted as a response to his video as an afterthought.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
The statement that you cannot prove a negative obviously can't be proven. But why is any unprovable statement ""an arbitrary statement and therefore meaningless"? If I say bigfoot doesn't exist, is that statement arbitrary and meaningless? Provability and veracity are two very different qualities. In fact, Kurt Gödel actually proved that if you prove that you can't prove something, you can subsequently prove anything you can imagine. Weird but true.
Fungo4 1 year ago
The context of the inability to prove a negative has been misunderstood here and wrapped in a lot of semantics. The statement refers to negative proof. None of the examples in the video are examples of the "argument from ignorance."
Example: God's existence cannot be proven false. God's non-existence is a negative that cannot be proven. However, because his non-existence cannot be proven doesn't mean he exists. To believe so is believing in negative evidence, ie. proof of a negative.
TampaRed 1 year ago
You may not be able to practically prove a negative in _all_ cases, but it is irrational to believe that the negative is automatically untrue because of this. And besides, I can easily prove that my glass is NOT full of water ;)
anthonzi 1 year ago
Hi Dan,
I know that Rand has said 'you cannot prove a negative'. I know you think she is a genius, and because I am keen for you to distance yourself from objectivist (assumptions & obscurantism) I point this out.
Take care,
efghijkl8 1 year ago
@efghijkl8 you're mistaken. she said that you 'cannot be called upon to prove a negative'. i.e. that one cannot be called upon to prove that an arbitrary assertion is false since the fact of it being arbitrary means, by definition, that it has no relation to reality and is thus not worthy of consideration.
good premises.
p.s. I don't care that you think I am making assertions. You have rejected induction which means that your entire epistemology is based on assertions, so why should I listen?
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins
I think people mistake, "you cannot prove a negative" with "he who asserts the positive has the burden of proof".
WarVideo 8 months ago
@WarVideo good point.
dannidandannikins 8 months ago
"This might be a fucking circle! "
Kurtyoungblood 1 year ago 2
This was awesome. Subscribed :)
chris3443 1 year ago
Why does this video have the tag "lesbians"?!
tifforo1 1 year ago
@tifforo1
Good question. I didn't even notice that.
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
@tifforo1 I was wondering if anyone would notice that. I found it funny, that's why.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins
Excellent video in it's epistemology and convincing points.
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
Not really what the statement means. It's used to refer to "You can't prove something does not exist" so maybe that's better wording.
lordthawkeye 1 year ago
@lordthawkeye Yeah it means that proving a negative (something non-existent) is meaningless and illogical. It doesn't imply that a negative might be true since it doesn't exist.
SuperFinGuy 1 year ago
"I can't prove this isn't David Hasselhoff testicles" LOL Great points.
SuperFinGuy 1 year ago
You are correct, sir.
You should make clear what you mean by a "negative" though. I think a "negative" refers to a claim of the non-existence of something.
Beethovens7th 1 year ago
@Beethovens7th Yeah, as in "one cannot be called to a prove a negative" i.e., one has to prove that there is a rhino in the room -- etc.
I got confused in sections of this video.
yankeewh1te 1 year ago
You can prove a negative by illustrating ontological contradictions ie you cant have square-circles. It goes against its ontological definition. I dont understand why you had to draw triangles and its internal degrees to explain this false conception thats overstated by theists: "you cant prove god doesnt exist" when you could simply state a sentence to debunk this myth like i did. Heres an interesting question, when an epistemological nihilist says knowledge doesnt exist, is he lying?
idontgiveashit0930 1 year ago
@idontgiveashit0930 Of course he is. "Knowledge doesn't exist" is a knowledge claim.
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
Isn't this the logic bomb that did in those robots in the Harry Mudd Star Trek episode?
Dude, good video...
johnycannuk 1 year ago
@johnycannuk sorry fella, not seen.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins Man, my age is showing...from the original Star Trek series...I'm certain clips are here on Youtube....
johnycannuk 1 year ago
@johnycannuk
The entire original series is on Youtube.
incrediblemulk42 1 year ago
Although you CAN prove a negative, one does not always know whether the answer is actually more ambigious then one that can be answered with a yes or no answer.
BespokeGroupUK 1 year ago
@BespokeGroupUK I'm sorry, I don't understand what point you are trying to make with this comment, please elaborate.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins Is the answer to every question yes or no? If the answer to every question is not yes or no, there may be some grey areas. Some concepts such as current unproveables (such as membrane theory I guess, but don't quote me on that) may remain hypothetical, or hypothetical until such a time as further information is gathered by experiment, However some answers just remain in a state of ambiguity, and at times, extreeme complexity to the point whereby attemts at explanation.....
BespokeGroupUK 1 year ago
@BespokeGroupUK ...... only serve to muddy the waters and create distorted images of what is real or true for any particular complex state of affairs, such as abstract concepts such as "the atheist community" for instance.
BespokeGroupUK 1 year ago
@BespokeGroupUK 'Is the answer to every question yes or no?'
Yes.
In some cases we may not yet have the information necessary to identify the correct answer, but fundamentally every hypothesis boils down to 'true' or 'false' (existence or non-existence, valid or invalid theory).
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
I am the person refert to in the video.
I see you can prove a negative. Is this your evidence then ? Thanks for lending me the effort and time.
I just see 1 flaw, that is in oreder to throw away all false assumptions you have to have one satisfing answer.
You need a starting position to navigate on. Like A+B+C= 180'.
MexxPowers 1 year ago
@MexxPowers correct, one needs a basis of knowledge. Ultimately that comes down to the axiom that existence exists - which is undeniable since denying it requires you to claim that you don't exist. It implies two further axioms: identity exists and consciousness exists. To deny these one would have to deny either that one has identity or that one has consciousness - but the act of declaring your opposition to these axioms confirms that you have identity and are conscious.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
How would we know there are no pixies flying around in the woods every night ?
Because there is no evidence for them. As soon as you get the evidence all else follows. Offcourse there are problems, but should I better said; One can't prove THIS negative ?
A major problem I heard of was with the evidence for gravitation.(dont get me started I am not a physiscian) Yet we
MexxPowers 1 year ago
My main point is there is evidence needed in your theory.
This the problem with the God hypothsis, you cannot disprove God.
Falsefication is needed here, like with the gravitation theory.
Mexx
MexxPowers 1 year ago
@MexxPowers Yes you can. See my video series ''belief in god is a lie and a deliberate act of evil'.
What you are attempting to do is to defend the arbitrary - you are saying that since god by definition is completely undetectable the lack of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, it is proof that there is no rational basis for your belief and therefore proof that claiming to know of his existence or plausible existence is completely arbitrary.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins
I will leave that question open. I would indeed be foolish of me to say that lack of evidence is evidence of absence. I am willing to admite I have no rational
basis for my beliefs. It just seems more plausible to me. If that is proof of his exsistence so be it. But so do elves and unicorns then. I think occam's razor and Hume's plausebility question is key here.
MexxPowers 1 year ago
@MexxPowers "This the problem with the God hypothsis, you cannot disprove God."
Sure you can, if you define God as "omniscient" or "omnipresent" or any other such nonsense. In other words, if you are talking about anything "supernatural," then such a claim can be disproved by making logical inferences from other known facts of reality.
Beethovens7th 1 year ago
LOL. Great video.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago