I have good news and bad news, religious folks. The good news is God exists! That bad news is that he's a completely incompetent asshole and you shouldn't worship him.
I wonder if the speaker would be able to positively prove than everything he considers or labels a negative could indeed be a negative. If you are going to commit yourself to labeling things as being a negative, then you have to prove they are in fact as you say, a negative. For example, if he labeled God a negative, he would first have to possess infinite knowledge in order to do so, and I doubt he has such knowledge.
@BT3701 "I wonder if the speaker would be able to positively prove than everything he considers or labels a negative could indeed be a negative. For example, if he labeled God a negative, he would first have to possess infinite knowledge in order to do so, and I doubt he has such knowledge."
He is saying he cannot prove god doesn't exist. So, you are saying "I bet he can't prove that god exists!". Come on.
This prick really annoys me. It's trivially simply to disprove Santa Claus. Get the definition of what someone means when they say "Santa Claus" and if the definition passes the test of coherence proceed to the next step which is to look for Santa Claus where he should be. If you don't find him, then guess what, he doesn't exist -SPECIFICALLY the Santa Claus as was defined from the outset doesn't exist.
@M3PanoS "Get the definition of what someone means.. If you don't find him, then guess what, he doesn't exist - SPECIFICALLY the Santa Claus as was defined from the outset doesn't exist.t"
So then, all that's required is for the person defining to change their definition. Move the chains. That would making trying to prove their negative exhaustive and many times impossible.
Negatives can be proven when the scope is finite or a contradiction. You are at the whim or the person making the claim.
@M3PanoS Right so we should just go to heaven and see if god is there, oh but we can't so therefore he must exist. Sound logic asshat. Like he said the burden of proof is on the person making the claim not the person who says you're wrong for making idiotic statements. Like it's been said a billion times before if i said a flying spaghetti monster was the creator of the universe, who lives beyond it, who should need to prove that me or you? Man ALL religious people are so damn stupid
saying that the idea of the first cause, aka God, is false is already a negative stance tantamount to making a bold claim as well. Therefore without any serious justification atheism remains only an unfounded assumption, because atheists assume that God doesn't exist & then are happy to contend that it's not even necessary to argue about it. Brilliant logic indeed *facepalm*
P.S.: I believe until there's INDUBITABLE proof refuting the notion of a transcendent Being who caused the universe to be.
To say you "can't prove a negative" is sloppy. In one sense, of course you can prove a negative: There is not a clearly visible apple on the table. Easy to prove.
Secondly, a more precise wording for what Randi is trying to express is: "You made the existence claim! You prove it! Default position yo"
And when the fellow says, "oh yeah, well prove it doesn't exist!", this is a well understood fallacy called "appeal to ignorance".
@jjplace123 You are absolutely correct. The "you can't prove a negative" is a very overly simplified title. It's a bulls-eye for people to run in yelling "YES YOU CAN! YOU CAN PROVE A NEGATIVE!!!@@!!".
@devious21 "So then, all that's required is for the person defining to change their definition. Move the chains. That would making trying to prove their negative exhaustive and many times impossible."
Then we're not talking about the same thing anymore, genius.
"Negatives can be proven when the scope is finite or a contradiction. You are at the whim or the person making the claim."
You're trying to show how someone can make their definition ad hoc -I'm defending no such thing though...
@ericdisney1 Umm... I think if God (if he existed) "challenged" anyone like he did Job, they would shit their pants! But seriously, have you ever read Job? Makes me glad he/she/it doesn't exist. To summarize, God took the man who loved him most and subjected him to the most horrible things imaginable just to prove to the devil how much Job loved God. Why should God care what the devil thinks of him, and why would he torture an innocent man to prove it? Sounds petty and insecure, not divine.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper Reading skills are not exactly your strong suit are they?... the underbar quite clearly says this is from a lecture in 1992. They were laughing becasue the idea of putting 1000 reindeer on ANY tall building is somewhat comical.
You don't even have to look in the oven to know the cake wasn't baked in your house while you away at class.
Not only do you fail to find things you would expect to find if the cake was baked (room mate, mixing bowls, egg shells, smell) but you also find things that shouldn't be there if the cake had been baked (unopened box of cake mix, all eggs in the fridge untouched).
It is reasonable to make the claim based on all available evidence that the cake was not baked. Proving a -
"Imagine that it's your birthday, and your room mate promised to bake you a cake while you were away at class. You arrive home expecting to find your room mate among mixing bowls, eggs shells and a sweet smell in the air, but suppose you find none of this. Suppose what you do find is an unopened box of cake mix on the table and a dozen eggs in your refrigerator. That is, you fail to find a number of things you would expect to find had the cake been baked"-Austin Dacey
This isn't exactly rocket science folks, in fact, it is borderline retarded. So don't ramble on about how "this is what he is doing and here's why." It is pretty fucking straight forward and again, it isn't rocket science. ( :
Santa is supposed to give coal of present to every children at Xmas, you can prove Santa doesn't "exist" by waiting for him. If he never comes it means he doesn't exist or that he quit his job, either way, he is not being Santa any more. :)
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo But you can always argue that you may have been naughty, so he didn't come.~~~ Point is, you always can find a loop hole if you want.
There is no loop hole, if a person is naughty, Santa will come and give you coal.
If you are not naughty you get presents, either way, Santa will come regardless of how you behave and give you something and it can be proven with evidence that Santa is not coming to any house with children like he should.
Would still prove that Santa does not give presents, there are billions of children, you can place cameras on every house to see Santa come, target children who are innocent and that for sure qualify in getting presents. Santa will not come. There is plenty evidence he doesn't do his job anymore, he is probably death, or hiding, what ever the reason is, there is no Santa in the present.
Which also means "there is NO evidence that there is NOT"
YOU CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE.
The burden of proof lies in the assertion - he who asserts MUST provide proof - demanding proof of the negative is nonsense. I say that now there are 3-headed Onglongitrons living up a duck's arse on an asteroid 45.7 light years ahead and 34 light years to the left of the Milky Way.
You can prove that Santa doesn't do what Santa is superposed to be doing, this can be proven with evidence.
It is not a NEGATIVE, or if it is, it is one that can be proven with evidence.
If you tell me that a coin does not exists in my hand and I show you both my hand and I have NO COIN, I just proved you where wrong, that kind of "negative" can be proven.
Unbiast open minds are definately a productive concept. However negatives are proven by positives. I can safely guess you are not a woman based on (I'm assuming but this concept is for you ) the fact that you appear clearly male. There are other such undeniable truths that leave behind billions of possible negatives per truth which can all be proven following the evidence of the positive fact.
Sure, you cant fully 'prove' that reindeer can't fly, until you have pushed all existing reindeer off the building, but then you haven't proved they cant fly. You just proved that the 4321341 reindeer you mercilessly killed cant fly. Not that reindeer cant fly.
But they cant. Its a bit too much to be ultimately skeptic.
Reindeer cant fly. You can bombard me with equations and quotes, but at the end of the day what do you truly believe? Anyways this world might not even exist so why try?
I hate to answer a question with a question, but you know what else was claimed to work against illness and regulated by the FDA? Vioxx. Yes, the drug that eases the pain and suffering of arthritis by killing you.
@ciaobellakate You're absolutely right, but the difference is that Vioxx is now known , by you and others, for its dangers. but what do you know about homeopathy. Vioxx is just one drug. Homeoapthy is an 200 year old system of medicine with a pharmacy of over 3,000 non patentable susbtances taken from various sources. yet Randi says its a sam. If he believes he can't prove a negative, then why does he try? Can he prove its a scam?
@Bandershot So when he takes 6 days of sleeping tablets in 1 go from a bottle that has an overdose warning and phone number, you think that doesn't prove that it's a scam? The whole cant prove a negative thing is only true of a negative, homeopathy is not a negative, it's an existing business that profits from lying, You cant prove god thinks 1 thing or another because you cant prove god exists or doesn't exist. You CAN prove weather homeopathy works or doesn't because IT EXISTS to be tested.
@TheLydianRocks p.s should note the sleeping tablets don't even make him sleepy, you'd think taking 36 pills more than the maximum dose of 2 would at least make him tired, it's a SCAM and anyone who still believes it after seeing that is ignorant, doesn't make them a bad person, but an extremely gullible and wish thinking 1. Dangerous pseudo science when replacing real medicine, laughable under all other circumstances except the placebo effect, which fails against life threatening diseases.
@TheLydianRocks No, it doesn't prove itsa scam. How do you know what he took & how it affected him? Because he SAID it did? Apply his criteria to his allegations & see how well they stand up to your analysis.
If I was doing the same thing as Randi is here, popping some unknown pills I SAID were homeopathic, then started staggering around & then fell fown asleep& couldn't be roused, would you believe I was really asleep? Randi would say I was faking it! But what if I said it was Vioxx? U C?
Can you prove that a boat filled with petrified wood in the Republic of Turkey "doesn't exist" at about 12,000 feet elevation? And can you prove that the wooden artifacts there contain "rings" in them?
And if not: What does it imply? Yes that's my challenge.
I can prove God is REAL Mr. Randi. I found the True Location of the Garden of Eden. I found where God left His WATERMARK of it. Make sure you contact me to give me that million.
what if you could prove that you could prove a negative? like by showing that there is no such thing as a married bachelor? also i like how someone pointed out that this was self-refuting
that is false. Because you can't know the position and time at once. Therefore a t-rex could exist you just would never know because you could never know where it existed and at what time and so rly u could never see it. no one can be in all locations at infinite amount of time therefore cannot be proven.
@snsdlovetaeyeon Your argument is fallacious. First of all, how would you know that "no one can be in all locations at an infinite amount of time?" Have you been in all locations at an infinite amount of time so that you can conclude that no one can be in all locations at an infinite amount of time? What you are saying, is pretty much, "there are no absolutes". But the problem here is that, your statement itself is an absolute claim in itself. Therefore, your own position is self-defeating.
@snsdlovetaeyeon Also, I am not saying that a t-rex never existed. What I am saying is that, at this point in time, you will find NO t-rex at any point anywhere on the face of the earth alive! That's logical and sound. If you take it to be not so, then you are going by Hume's problem of causation, and ultimately becoming a skeptic about everything, and divorcing from the reliability of your five senses.
@graceteam But you haven't really proven it. A t-rex could be hiding somewhere. Yes, we can reasonably believe that no T-Rex lives on earth now (or anywhere else for that matter), but you cannot prove an absolute negative. Also, the T-Rex is a defined thing. Religious folk tend to create ad hoc attributes for God (i.e. He is invisible, He exists outside space and time, He cannot be seen), thus making it an untestable hypothesis.
@backwoodsninja Not only do religious folks tend to create ad hoc attributes for God, so do numerous scientist about energy, conscious, numbers, matter etc. Such are untestable by the scientific method, so why, go ridiculing religious folks when the same falls on you on different issues? Many scientists also commit the post hoc fallacy in many of these things in trying to find their cause.
@graceteam Because statements about God are fact statements, either true or false. Energy can be demonstrated. Consciousness exists as demonstrated by the fact that I am typing this right now. Numbers are simply a system we've created with which to measure amounts. Matter is just a scientific term for ... well ... "stuff."
@graceteam You didn't get the point, did you? You just proved the absence of a t-rex by saying that "there are no t-rexes" which is enough but sometimes it goes beyond that when people start believing in things that never were there to begin with. And a potential liar would tell you that he indeed had a t-rex in his basement but would refuse to show it to you due to the health issues of his beloved pet. And that's where Randi's point kicks in: if he doesn't show it it's potentially not there.
@IP6000 You are just playing with words. This is no a semantics conundrum. It is a verifiable truth upon empirical data. What is it that you are arguing? Imaginary objects?
sadly you have become an entertainer who plays to his audience. you have gone down the wrong road mate. you should excite them with the facts not play to their failings
Comprehend that things which are composed of non physical ( made of frequencies subtler than quarks, mesons and other particle waves composing matter) aspects of creation cannot be proved physically and cannot be validated with the 5 physical sense of material body. Until you comprehend this you will keep on denying the ultimate reality and greater aspects of universe
Comprehend that things which are composed of non physical ( made of frequencies subtler than quarks, mesons and other particle waves composing matter) aspects of creation cannot be proved physically and cannot be validated with the 5 physical sense of material body. Until you comprehend this you will keep on denying the ultimate reality and greater aspects of universe.
Wow... so we have to roam through the trenches of insanity to cling to our notions of what we can and cannot prove? Please. Any logician will tell you that proving a negative is the same as proving a positive. In fact, every time you prove a positive, you prove countless negatives.
So, can you prove that President Obama and AirForce One are not up your arse? Full sized and fully functioning, running the country from your colon? Or are you someone uncertain? @nausilis@aratidwell
@vynson how do we know these elephants are not microscopic and invisible? See the point is that you can't with absolutely certainty say that there are no elephants in your ass you can only say what is most likely, and thats the point of it.
@comeonfolks We can test that hypothesis but we cannot currently know with absolute certainty whether or not there is in fact an MLK Jr. walking around my room, It's like Carl Sagan's green fire breathing dragon in his garage, the punch line being what is the difference between a heatless fire breathing, flying, intangible dragon and no dragon at all. We can't absolutely know but we don't have to have absolute certainty when we can determine what is most likely.
@vynson I suspect there are not elephants in my ass. I suspect this strongly. Were it be the case elephants which were smaller than my previous conceptual understanding had led me to believe, I might however have to call myself wrong. Or perhaps were I in fact dreaming from a cross-species un-orthodox cloning operating table. Unlikely, yes.
@vynson I suspect there are not elephants in my ass. I suspect this strongly. Were it be the case elephants which were smaller than my previous conceptual understanding had led me to believe, I might however have to call myself wrong. Or perhaps were I in fact dreaming from a cross-species un-orthodox cloning operating table. Unlikely, yes.
I see being a skeptic as a very positive standpoint actually. You don't go saying "This is too crazy, it cannot be true, therefore I don't believe it", you say that something does not appear to be likely to be true but you actually suspend that and give it a chance to prove itself. Blind belief or rejection and healthy skepticism are sky and earth.
Suppose it is possible to prove the claim, "it is impossible to prove a negative" to be true (abbreviated now as Δ). Then it has been proven that Δ is true. But Δ is itself a negative, contradicting the fact that it is impossible to prove a negative. Hence, it is impossible to prove Δ is true. Now, let Σ be the statement, "it is impossible to prove Δ is true." Since I have shown that Σ is true, and since Σ is a negative, this shows Δ to be false. Therefore, it is possible to prove a negative.
We can prove this negative: Prove that the earth is not flat!
I think that the "can't prove a negative" rule of thumb is too general, perhaps it should be something closer to: "We can't prove a negative other than for negative properties of known quantities."
@ninjatoothpaste Actually, you don't prove that the Earth is not flat... you're proving that the Earth is round. By extension this "means" that the Earth is not flat. However, there can always be a possibility that in some way... that the Earth is both round AND flat. You have not proven that the Earth is not flat, you have only proven that it is round.
That may seem confusing but if you look at light... which you can prove is a particle... yet you can also prove is a wave
@emeraldlobster Fair point, though if we're prepared to go that far we have to be prepared to move out of the world of the objective and into the world of the objectively abstract, we have to ask the questions: 1. What is flat? 2. What is round/spherical? We can't have disproof without proof, and we can have neither without a claim to proove or disproove, and a claim that isn't accurately defined cannot have an accurately defined answer. Continued in reply comment :)
If we scaled the earth down to the size of a snooker ball it would be smoother by quite a considerable amount, yet if asked which was more round most people would go with the snooker ball because it's smoother. So to answer the question "Which is smoother?" We need to define the conditions. Given that most people aren't great thinkers we need to know what they mean, and what they mean by flat vs round is either ___ or O as observed from a distance. That's the image in their minds eye.
And given that's what they mean, the images from space and other science more than constitutes proof that the earth isn't flat; btw your argument that we've proven that the earth is round and by extension that it's not flat is true enough, but it's really just arguing semantics as that's so obvious that it's omitted in casual conversation, you may have a point that less educated people may not realise this however. :) Nice discussion, you've sparked off a fire in my mind :D
@ninjatoothpaste It isn't about arguing semantics, it's about the onus of proof of a claim lying with he claiming it to be valid- ie; if someone claims that the earth IS flat, he can levitate, there is a heaven/hell, he has ESP, etc, the onus of proof is on HIM to provide substantiating evidence to demonstrate and "prove" the validity of his claim, and NOT on his skeptics to prove that his claim ISN'T valid. You can't just make a claim & say "Prove me wrong"... you must prove yourself RIGHT.
@dog1dog2 I know and agree that the onus is on the one making the claim to provide proof. However "you can't prove a negative" is a lazy way of putting it, especially given that there CAN be "evidence of absence", and since that particular argument is often used in debate with religious folk and their insight into these matters isn't conducive to proper understanding of the meaning of it... (continued...)
@dog1dog2 (cont...) for this reason when debating the burden of proof I would suggest that the argument should be put forward for the practicality of direct evidence over inferred or deduced evidence of [the] absence of a positive proposition. But then thinking about it that would still have little chance of getting through to a devout religious person... In short I agree with you, and I understand what it means to say you can't prove a negative, I just don't think it's clear enough for some.
@emeraldlobster You're forgetting non-contradiction. Nothing can exhibit mutually-exclusive properties (i.e., nothing can freeze and burn simultaneously); Earth is either round or flat, and since it is proven to be round, it can't be flat. Its observed flatness is due to its enormous size relative to the human scale.
In your example of light, keep in mind that waves and particles are only models we use to predict how systems will behave; we can't directly experience what light "really" is.
But a claim of a positive? One case of psychic ability under strictly controlled conditions would change the world. So far its highly unlikely and no one has yet come forward with the ability to do so under testable conditions. Do psychic powers REALLY exist? Not a clue. So far the evidence does not lean toward it at all.
That you cant prove a negative is based on the on probability guys. You cannot prove a negative, you can only show more and more how unlikely an event is. You cannot rule it out entirely. Philosophically and other means perhaps, but events no.
Proving a positive, same issue: e.g "By the results of the experiment, it is very likely that this is the case". P values go all to infinitely .000000001. We can be very sure this is the case. But if a new theory comes, old fact tossed out.
@buschgardens1 He means that you cant ever prove that something doesn't exist. It's easy to prove that something does exist by just finding an example of it, however unless you can look everywhere and test everything in every possible way you'll never be able to conclusively say that something doesnt exist.
I know I'm going to get a lot of hate from people educated beyond their capacity to understand, but in some cases you CAN prove negatives.
It's called "proof by contradiction" (formerly known as "reductio as absurdum"). Used formally by mathematics and philosophy and informally by everyone. If the definition of something results in a logical contraction that thing is false.
I can prove there are no two integers with a ratio that is precisely root 2. Also that there are no square triangles.
by definition a triangle cannot be square... just as the shortest distance between two points is a straight line ... those are axioms ... or self-evident
ofcourse you can prove it... just that it doesnt fall in the same type of negative that randi is talking about
Which bit of "proof by contradiction" do you not understand? Any concept with a description that contradicts itself is clearly false. Square triangle is obvious. But the same method of proof by contradiction shows that you can NEVER find two integers with a ratio that is precisely the square root of 2. That's harder to show. Which is why I threw "square triangle" into the shallow end of the intelligence pool.
listen man... its been a long fuckin time since i studied integers and shit in highschool .. so I cant rememer if what you're saying is true... anyway... the description of a fuckin raindeer does not state if it can fly or NOT ... so you cant fuckin apply no damn reductio as absurdum.
Again ..You and Randi are talking about two different concepts .. a triangle is a simple selfevident concept ...a
raindeer's ability to fly is a concept that does not define it self ...
Sheesh, you're too stupid to fucking google? I guarantee you that no pair of integers with a ratio that is the precise square root of 2 exist. I bet you my life upon that. And if you'd googled for "proof by contradiction" that would have been the commonest example you found.
You're too fucking thick to even grasp that "square triangle" was aimed at fucktards like you who do not understand integers. It's self-fucking-evidently false. Proof by contradiction for fucktards
again with the fuckin integers.. where exactly have I contradicted you on the concept of there being no two different integers with a ratio that is the precise square root of two ???
again.. the integer proposition is a mathematical truth ... I dont give a flying fuck how hard it is to show compared to the concept of there beying no such thing as a square triangle its the same fuckin thing...
I know you're hard of thinking so I'll take this slowly.
Randi said it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. He gave an EXAMPLE of flying reindeer.
I stated, correctly, that it is possible to prove that SOME things do not exist. Randi over-generalized.
You are too fucking stupid to even google for "proof by contradiction." Instead you attempt to distract from Randi's over-generalization by citing his example.
If you were to quickly define flying in a conceptual way, then you might say its the defiance of gravity by (based on what we know) utilizing the atmosphere.
Reindeer don't have the kind of tools to do this, and at least aren't given the details of having them when little children or bs parents make the claim that they exist.
So, doesn't that make reindeer an axiom and therefore falls into the same category of that triangle that cannot be a square?
Well I cant speak for your knowledge tho, but seems your arrogance is working ok
But why not analyse what the fuck your talking about instead of jumping around, saying "Only i know, and you know nothing", I mean with your amazing self confidence, you gotta be able to show that you are right or wrong atleast, else you force me to categorize you as arrogant internet prick.
You can still wake up about the blind trust in science. Somewhere in the bak of your mind you now it. You don't have to make a choise to believe anything because you are smart enough to figure out reality without the answers in science.
Science is all about giving answers while the questions are being studied.
(Max Planck):
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die".
Would youn really expect that Randi James or even Sagan, Degrassetyseon will ever ADMIT mistakes? No scientist ever done that! Not even creepy UFOlogists or conspiracy fanatics.
Admitting your mistakes is game over...
If you would cheat on your wife for 10 years in a 20 year marraige then you can not expect your wife will thank you for it. It can be an act of good in compare to longer time but the main factor is you can not be taken seriously by the ones loving you. (you will be hated!)
Sure Scientists can admit mistakes, really you can go into the honesty of the person who is a scientist. Maybe they dont want to be honest, being human and making mistakes. certainly we cant blame the Scientific investigative method for that, just yesterday my high school chem teacher did so. we where measuring phosphoric acid in coke, and by accident we forgot to shake the CO2 out of it :)
Not if its your line of work... Like me... i studied UFO's for many years... I can finally admit that the government is behind it and erasing true history... If i was a famous UFOlogist wich made money on people then the obvious result for me = shut up... If not... Nobody would ever take me serious again... (like in all science)
Science is the power of status and never the truth (go read some random books from a library and then you'll understand)
Yeah sure, Ill assume you mean the American Government and not the Government in my little bell end of northern Europe :) I would ask in on what evidence proves that the government is doing that?
But Science is all about the investigation, and if you claim that you know that something is so, but cant show it, then you are a fool. You have to convince them and the evidence become clear through scientific investigation.
I can absolutely show you how the truth works but its up to you to follow the path. No God, No evolution and no UFO's... It will take you 1 year atleast to understand the meaning of all in this world. Free-energy exist wiether people obey the system or not. Common sense is that many alternatives for science in free-energy exist but NO EDUCATION (try to put a con. theory on that) Evidence? Do you really want proof against your worldview?
You want me, a student well enough in grade A with higher technical education, but hardly close to an university degree, to demonstrate the fact of Evolution. Why dont you go ask a biology professor for that m8 :)
But WTF, we are talking about Science, skeptical thinking and how they work and suddenly you throw out wanting me to prove things to you, I dont know much about evolution, at least not enough to say its a fact. If I find it important, ill find out.
James Randi suck completaly and so for the people buying his shit... Ill put this to the test.
There is no science involved if a woman takes of her bra and 3 boobs are visible. Eyewitnesses are making the claim but a scientist can not use a witness to prove something "scientists" can not explain. (this means: science vs the wisdom of a witness... science lose) Its the same when a psychiatrist would ask his patient what is wrong with him/her wich is no scientific study at all! (you suck!)
I find James Randi amusing because he is a great orator. He can hold a lecture talking about a potentially dry subject and keep your interest as well as make it somewhat fun.
@redryan20000 He isn't proving that you can't prove a negative. He's explaining why you can't prove a negative. If there was a negative to what he was saying (in the context of him trying to PROVE that you can't prove a negative) then that would mean you could prove a negative; completely negating everything he talked about in the video.
@redryan20000 Thats not a negative. Just cause it has "can not" in the sentence doesnt make it negative. negative Means: Nowhere in reality exists. That applies only for empirical claims anyway, not for logic.
@redryan20000 by proving that you can't prove that there is proof for a negative. But you would fail to arrive at that proof because there IS proof for a negative: proof by contradiction. :-)
@xmasterfunk No you can prove a negative. E.g. You can prove there are no even prime numbers greater than two. You can prove that there are no odd numbers divisible by 2. How? Reductio ad absurdum.
@redryan20000 Because when you say you can't prove that something doesn't exist you put two negatives in the same sentence, and whe know that (-) + (-) = positive.
if they apply this to modern science, it will collapse. since every theory seems to have at least one reindeer flying, but because a million don't we accept them as reality.
1:55 Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence. because the evidence is absent despite searching for it in the places where it should be if it were true (absence of fat man in the chimney). Which is different from not having searched an having absent evidence. Which indeed wouldnt count.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
With all due respect to the enlightened self rationalist Mr. James Randi, he doesn't know what he's talking about. You can prove a negative, and there isn't one professional logician who agrees with Randi that you can't. The statement "You can't prove a negative" IS A NEGATIVE. Therefore if this negative statement were true it would be false. How about the negative claim that 2+2 does not equal 5. Would any rational person say you cannot prove that lo? Randi needs to take a class in logic.
@Christianjr4 i can tell just by your name why you would think what you just posted, but your name aside...here's food for thought, can you prove that 2+2 will ALWAYS, under EVERY circumstance and DIFFERENT settings that it will ALWAYS equal 4, of course you cant, maybe in universe B it equals 5. Now...OBVIOUSLY...for most people and places, 2+2 does equal 4 for convenience. But in science and LIFE for that matter perpeutal uncertainty is always a rule one should abide by. Hope this helps.
It has nothing to do with my name and everything to do with simple basic reasoning. You don't have to be a Christian to see the obvious flaw in his statement. Indeed, that's why I said there was no professional logician who agrees with Randi that you can't prove a negative (and I bet my life on that fact). More importantly, however, you're simply wrong. Mathematical deductions are true by necessity, which means there are no possible circumstances in which they are not true...cont
...Such a mathematical deduction as 2+2 = 4 is on a par with the law of non-contradiction. There's just no possible world/circumstance in which those could be false under the description they hold. Finally, your claim that these negative statements can't be proved in all circumstances makes the whole point of the original claim trivial. You could also say the same thing equally for all positive statements, but then why make the claim "you can't prove a negative" in the first place.
@Christianjr4 LIKE I SAID....in universe B 2+2 might NOT equal 4, it just so happens that in our universe it does but even then we do it for CONVENIENCE , in someone else's mind 2+2 might equal 146, granted we wont change the fact that it equals 4 just because one person thinks it 146 for the sake of CONVENIENCE, or maybe in ANOTHER dimension that YOU cant PROVE OR DISPROVE exists(hence this arguement) 2+2 will equal 7 there. For the sake of ORDER we say 2+2=4.
Randi predicted 9/11! He's Psychic!
chenalos 2 days ago
I have good news and bad news, religious folks. The good news is God exists! That bad news is that he's a completely incompetent asshole and you shouldn't worship him.
americandodgeball 6 days ago
I wonder if the speaker would be able to positively prove than everything he considers or labels a negative could indeed be a negative. If you are going to commit yourself to labeling things as being a negative, then you have to prove they are in fact as you say, a negative. For example, if he labeled God a negative, he would first have to possess infinite knowledge in order to do so, and I doubt he has such knowledge.
BT3701 1 week ago in playlist Stupid videos by YT Atheists
This has been flagged as spam show
@BT3701 "I wonder if the speaker would be able to positively prove than everything he considers or labels a negative could indeed be a negative. For example, if he labeled God a negative, he would first have to possess infinite knowledge in order to do so, and I doubt he has such knowledge."
He is saying he cannot prove god doesn't exist. So, you are saying "I bet he can't prove that god exists!". Come on.
devious21 1 week ago
This prick really annoys me. It's trivially simply to disprove Santa Claus. Get the definition of what someone means when they say "Santa Claus" and if the definition passes the test of coherence proceed to the next step which is to look for Santa Claus where he should be. If you don't find him, then guess what, he doesn't exist -SPECIFICALLY the Santa Claus as was defined from the outset doesn't exist.
Wow, some of you atheists are so damn stupid.
M3PanoS 1 week ago in playlist Stupid videos by YT Atheists 4
@M3PanoS "Get the definition of what someone means.. If you don't find him, then guess what, he doesn't exist - SPECIFICALLY the Santa Claus as was defined from the outset doesn't exist.t"
So then, all that's required is for the person defining to change their definition. Move the chains. That would making trying to prove their negative exhaustive and many times impossible.
Negatives can be proven when the scope is finite or a contradiction. You are at the whim or the person making the claim.
devious21 1 week ago
@M3PanoS Right so we should just go to heaven and see if god is there, oh but we can't so therefore he must exist. Sound logic asshat. Like he said the burden of proof is on the person making the claim not the person who says you're wrong for making idiotic statements. Like it's been said a billion times before if i said a flying spaghetti monster was the creator of the universe, who lives beyond it, who should need to prove that me or you? Man ALL religious people are so damn stupid
kryptic127 2 days ago
I have a question: If you cannot disprove a "Negative", Then how can you claim that it is a "Negative".
EternalTheology 1 week ago in playlist Stupid videos by YT Atheists 4
@EternalTheology it contains NOT, therefore it's a negative.
piratesephiroth 1 week ago
@EternalTheology You cannot "prove a negative", not "disprove a negative." I think you're a bit confused.
OmnipotentEntity 1 week ago
Comment removed
EternalTheology 1 week ago in playlist Stupid videos by YT Atheists
saying that the idea of the first cause, aka God, is false is already a negative stance tantamount to making a bold claim as well. Therefore without any serious justification atheism remains only an unfounded assumption, because atheists assume that God doesn't exist & then are happy to contend that it's not even necessary to argue about it. Brilliant logic indeed *facepalm*
P.S.: I believe until there's INDUBITABLE proof refuting the notion of a transcendent Being who caused the universe to be.
pawsoned 1 week ago in playlist Stupid videos by YT Atheists
To say you "can't prove a negative" is sloppy. In one sense, of course you can prove a negative: There is not a clearly visible apple on the table. Easy to prove.
Secondly, a more precise wording for what Randi is trying to express is: "You made the existence claim! You prove it! Default position yo"
And when the fellow says, "oh yeah, well prove it doesn't exist!", this is a well understood fallacy called "appeal to ignorance".
jjplace123 2 weeks ago
@jjplace123 You are absolutely correct. The "you can't prove a negative" is a very overly simplified title. It's a bulls-eye for people to run in yelling "YES YOU CAN! YOU CAN PROVE A NEGATIVE!!!@@!!".
devious21 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@devious21 "So then, all that's required is for the person defining to change their definition. Move the chains. That would making trying to prove their negative exhaustive and many times impossible."
Then we're not talking about the same thing anymore, genius.
"Negatives can be proven when the scope is finite or a contradiction. You are at the whim or the person making the claim."
You're trying to show how someone can make their definition ad hoc -I'm defending no such thing though...
M3PanoS 1 week ago
IF THE. CREATOR CHALLENGED THIS MAN LIKE HE DID TO JOB OF THE BIBLE.RANDI WOULD BE SHITTING IN HIS PANTS,
ericdisney1 2 weeks ago
@ericdisney1 Umm... I think if God (if he existed) "challenged" anyone like he did Job, they would shit their pants! But seriously, have you ever read Job? Makes me glad he/she/it doesn't exist. To summarize, God took the man who loved him most and subjected him to the most horrible things imaginable just to prove to the devil how much Job loved God. Why should God care what the devil thinks of him, and why would he torture an innocent man to prove it? Sounds petty and insecure, not divine.
wendighoul 2 weeks ago
3:58 people are laughing because you obviously can't put rain dears on the world trade center because the wtc doesn't exist anymore haha funny man
MoonwalkerWorshiper 3 weeks ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper Reading skills are not exactly your strong suit are they?... the underbar quite clearly says this is from a lecture in 1992. They were laughing becasue the idea of putting 1000 reindeer on ANY tall building is somewhat comical.
wendighoul 2 weeks ago
@wendighoul why 1000 rain dears why not just 100
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 weeks ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper The number doesn't matter, it's just meant to be a sufficiently large sampling.
wendighoul 1 week ago
@wendighoul well 1000 reigndaars wouldn't fit on WTC especially when WTC is gone
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 week ago
Continued:
You don't even have to look in the oven to know the cake wasn't baked in your house while you away at class.
Not only do you fail to find things you would expect to find if the cake was baked (room mate, mixing bowls, egg shells, smell) but you also find things that shouldn't be there if the cake had been baked (unopened box of cake mix, all eggs in the fridge untouched).
It is reasonable to make the claim based on all available evidence that the cake was not baked. Proving a -
theBartone9119 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Proving a negative = Easy
"Imagine that it's your birthday, and your room mate promised to bake you a cake while you were away at class. You arrive home expecting to find your room mate among mixing bowls, eggs shells and a sweet smell in the air, but suppose you find none of this. Suppose what you do find is an unopened box of cake mix on the table and a dozen eggs in your refrigerator. That is, you fail to find a number of things you would expect to find had the cake been baked"-Austin Dacey
theBartone9119 1 month ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 1 month ago
You cannot prove a negative.. Proceeds to offer evidence to negate the possibility of proving a negative. lol.
tucense 1 month ago
@tucense No... His example was showing how you can test the validity of a claim through an experiment based on the persons claims.
That isn't trying to PROVE a negative.........
feuchster 1 month ago
@tucense
Sigh, watch it again, if you dont understand, then you have failed at the logic exam phase.
MitchofSmeg 1 month ago
@tucense Wow! The power of your intellect is impressive.
mikelheron20 1 month ago
This isn't exactly rocket science folks, in fact, it is borderline retarded. So don't ramble on about how "this is what he is doing and here's why." It is pretty fucking straight forward and again, it isn't rocket science. ( :
CheddarBob39 2 months ago
HELLO FELLOW VIRGINS!!!
This is good stuff isn't it?
CheddarBob39 2 months ago
@CheddarBob39 You haven't been to a university where there are smart women, huh?
GaolisVideoLog 1 month ago in playlist psychic 2
@GaolisVideoLog
No, only hot woman, which I prefer.
CheddarBob39 1 month ago
@CheddarBob39 There are tons of hot women in universities.
GaolisVideoLog 1 month ago
Santa is supposed to give coal of present to every children at Xmas, you can prove Santa doesn't "exist" by waiting for him. If he never comes it means he doesn't exist or that he quit his job, either way, he is not being Santa any more. :)
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 2 months ago
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo But you can always argue that you may have been naughty, so he didn't come.~~~ Point is, you always can find a loop hole if you want.
GaolisVideoLog 1 month ago in playlist psychic 2
@GaolisVideoLog
There is no loop hole, if a person is naughty, Santa will come and give you coal.
If you are not naughty you get presents, either way, Santa will come regardless of how you behave and give you something and it can be proven with evidence that Santa is not coming to any house with children like he should.
So we can prove Santa doesn't exist anymore.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 1 month ago
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo
What if the coal thing is made up though?
MitchofSmeg 1 month ago
@MitchofSmeg
Would still prove that Santa does not give presents, there are billions of children, you can place cameras on every house to see Santa come, target children who are innocent and that for sure qualify in getting presents. Santa will not come. There is plenty evidence he doesn't do his job anymore, he is probably death, or hiding, what ever the reason is, there is no Santa in the present.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 1 month ago
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo
You mean "there is NO evidence that there is"
Which also means "there is NO evidence that there is NOT"
YOU CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE.
The burden of proof lies in the assertion - he who asserts MUST provide proof - demanding proof of the negative is nonsense. I say that now there are 3-headed Onglongitrons living up a duck's arse on an asteroid 45.7 light years ahead and 34 light years to the left of the Milky Way.
Prove me wrong !
tellnet 3 weeks ago
@tellnet
I know that you can't prove a negative... so why are you doing this comment to me?
Where I said that negatives can be proven?
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 weeks ago
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo
You stated:
"there is no Santa in the present."
That is an impossible negative - you cannot prove it, if true.
tellnet 3 weeks ago
@tellnet
You can prove it because nobody is spreading presents or coal in the present days.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 weeks ago
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo
You say "You can prove it "
AND
You say:
"I know that you can't prove a negative"
Not only are you a deranged perverted individual (I read your profile), but you are dumb too (hardly surprising)
Fuck off and see a psychiatrist.
You sicken me.
tellnet 3 weeks ago
@tellnet
You can prove that Santa doesn't do what Santa is superposed to be doing, this can be proven with evidence.
It is not a NEGATIVE, or if it is, it is one that can be proven with evidence.
If you tell me that a coin does not exists in my hand and I show you both my hand and I have NO COIN, I just proved you where wrong, that kind of "negative" can be proven.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 weeks ago
People are so silly when they confuse skepticism with cynicism.
ciaobellakate 4 months ago
Unbiast open minds are definately a productive concept. However negatives are proven by positives. I can safely guess you are not a woman based on (I'm assuming but this concept is for you ) the fact that you appear clearly male. There are other such undeniable truths that leave behind billions of possible negatives per truth which can all be proven following the evidence of the positive fact.
thesorow 4 months ago
Sure, you cant fully 'prove' that reindeer can't fly, until you have pushed all existing reindeer off the building, but then you haven't proved they cant fly. You just proved that the 4321341 reindeer you mercilessly killed cant fly. Not that reindeer cant fly.
But they cant. Its a bit too much to be ultimately skeptic.
Reindeer cant fly. You can bombard me with equations and quotes, but at the end of the day what do you truly believe? Anyways this world might not even exist so why try?
urpaderpa 4 months ago
If homeopathy can't work, then:
Why is the US's #1 rated hospital, MD ANDERSON, using it to CURE BRAIN CANCER?
Why does an American MEDICAL College now train MD's to use it?
Why is it FDA regulated?
Why is AZ licensing it?
Why does Cuba use it to stop epidemics?
Why do top material scientists dismiss Randi's arguments as irrelevant? (Roy, Structure of Liquid Water)
Why did WItt et al find "in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies" in over 47 experiments?
Investigate!
Bandershot 4 months ago
@Bandershot
I hate to answer a question with a question, but you know what else was claimed to work against illness and regulated by the FDA? Vioxx. Yes, the drug that eases the pain and suffering of arthritis by killing you.
ciaobellakate 4 months ago
@ciaobellakate You're absolutely right, but the difference is that Vioxx is now known , by you and others, for its dangers. but what do you know about homeopathy. Vioxx is just one drug. Homeoapthy is an 200 year old system of medicine with a pharmacy of over 3,000 non patentable susbtances taken from various sources. yet Randi says its a sam. If he believes he can't prove a negative, then why does he try? Can he prove its a scam?
Bandershot 4 months ago
@Bandershot So when he takes 6 days of sleeping tablets in 1 go from a bottle that has an overdose warning and phone number, you think that doesn't prove that it's a scam? The whole cant prove a negative thing is only true of a negative, homeopathy is not a negative, it's an existing business that profits from lying, You cant prove god thinks 1 thing or another because you cant prove god exists or doesn't exist. You CAN prove weather homeopathy works or doesn't because IT EXISTS to be tested.
TheLydianRocks 3 months ago
@TheLydianRocks p.s should note the sleeping tablets don't even make him sleepy, you'd think taking 36 pills more than the maximum dose of 2 would at least make him tired, it's a SCAM and anyone who still believes it after seeing that is ignorant, doesn't make them a bad person, but an extremely gullible and wish thinking 1. Dangerous pseudo science when replacing real medicine, laughable under all other circumstances except the placebo effect, which fails against life threatening diseases.
TheLydianRocks 3 months ago
@TheLydianRocks No, it doesn't prove itsa scam. How do you know what he took & how it affected him? Because he SAID it did? Apply his criteria to his allegations & see how well they stand up to your analysis.
If I was doing the same thing as Randi is here, popping some unknown pills I SAID were homeopathic, then started staggering around & then fell fown asleep& couldn't be roused, would you believe I was really asleep? Randi would say I was faking it! But what if I said it was Vioxx? U C?
Bandershot 3 months ago
@Bandershot
You do not need to highlight that America is one of the dumbest nations on the planet.
Such is common knowledge.
But, thanks for the laugh anyway !
tellnet 3 weeks ago
Can you prove that a boat filled with petrified wood in the Republic of Turkey "doesn't exist" at about 12,000 feet elevation? And can you prove that the wooden artifacts there contain "rings" in them?
And if not: What does it imply? Yes that's my challenge.
pbatusa 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I can prove God is REAL Mr. Randi. I found the True Location of the Garden of Eden. I found where God left His WATERMARK of it. Make sure you contact me to give me that million.
downyourtube 7 months ago
what if you could prove that you could prove a negative? like by showing that there is no such thing as a married bachelor? also i like how someone pointed out that this was self-refuting
xnorthcarolinax 7 months ago
Santa uses Santa-magic to get them to fly.
Senkon 8 months ago
it's easy to prove a negative...we can prove that there are no tyrannosaur rex on the face of the earth. Go figure.
graceteam 8 months ago
@graceteam Perhaps you need to re-watch the video...
dog1dog2 8 months ago
@graceteam
that is false. Because you can't know the position and time at once. Therefore a t-rex could exist you just would never know because you could never know where it existed and at what time and so rly u could never see it. no one can be in all locations at infinite amount of time therefore cannot be proven.
snsdlovetaeyeon 8 months ago
@snsdlovetaeyeon Your argument is fallacious. First of all, how would you know that "no one can be in all locations at an infinite amount of time?" Have you been in all locations at an infinite amount of time so that you can conclude that no one can be in all locations at an infinite amount of time? What you are saying, is pretty much, "there are no absolutes". But the problem here is that, your statement itself is an absolute claim in itself. Therefore, your own position is self-defeating.
graceteam 8 months ago
@snsdlovetaeyeon Also, I am not saying that a t-rex never existed. What I am saying is that, at this point in time, you will find NO t-rex at any point anywhere on the face of the earth alive! That's logical and sound. If you take it to be not so, then you are going by Hume's problem of causation, and ultimately becoming a skeptic about everything, and divorcing from the reliability of your five senses.
graceteam 8 months ago
@graceteam But you haven't really proven it. A t-rex could be hiding somewhere. Yes, we can reasonably believe that no T-Rex lives on earth now (or anywhere else for that matter), but you cannot prove an absolute negative. Also, the T-Rex is a defined thing. Religious folk tend to create ad hoc attributes for God (i.e. He is invisible, He exists outside space and time, He cannot be seen), thus making it an untestable hypothesis.
backwoodsninja 6 months ago
@backwoodsninja Not only do religious folks tend to create ad hoc attributes for God, so do numerous scientist about energy, conscious, numbers, matter etc. Such are untestable by the scientific method, so why, go ridiculing religious folks when the same falls on you on different issues? Many scientists also commit the post hoc fallacy in many of these things in trying to find their cause.
graceteam 6 months ago
@graceteam Because statements about God are fact statements, either true or false. Energy can be demonstrated. Consciousness exists as demonstrated by the fact that I am typing this right now. Numbers are simply a system we've created with which to measure amounts. Matter is just a scientific term for ... well ... "stuff."
backwoodsninja 6 months ago
@graceteam You didn't get the point, did you? You just proved the absence of a t-rex by saying that "there are no t-rexes" which is enough but sometimes it goes beyond that when people start believing in things that never were there to begin with. And a potential liar would tell you that he indeed had a t-rex in his basement but would refuse to show it to you due to the health issues of his beloved pet. And that's where Randi's point kicks in: if he doesn't show it it's potentially not there.
IP6000 8 months ago
@IP6000 You are just playing with words. This is no a semantics conundrum. It is a verifiable truth upon empirical data. What is it that you are arguing? Imaginary objects?
graceteam 8 months ago
@graceteam That depends. Do you argue on the basis of mathematics or of what mr. Randi was actually talking about?
IP6000 8 months ago
Fallacy alert! Fallacy alert!
drrobertoboogie97 8 months ago
sadly you have become an entertainer who plays to his audience. you have gone down the wrong road mate. you should excite them with the facts not play to their failings
MySluggy 8 months ago
Please visit spiritualresearchfoundation
Anoop20111 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Comprehend that things which are composed of non physical ( made of frequencies subtler than quarks, mesons and other particle waves composing matter) aspects of creation cannot be proved physically and cannot be validated with the 5 physical sense of material body. Until you comprehend this you will keep on denying the ultimate reality and greater aspects of universe
Anoop20111 9 months ago
Comprehend that things which are composed of non physical ( made of frequencies subtler than quarks, mesons and other particle waves composing matter) aspects of creation cannot be proved physically and cannot be validated with the 5 physical sense of material body. Until you comprehend this you will keep on denying the ultimate reality and greater aspects of universe.
Anoop20111 9 months ago
Once upon a time there were 9 morons.
gigisdad 9 months ago
Wow... so we have to roam through the trenches of insanity to cling to our notions of what we can and cannot prove? Please. Any logician will tell you that proving a negative is the same as proving a positive. In fact, every time you prove a positive, you prove countless negatives.
So, can you prove that President Obama and AirForce One are not up your arse? Full sized and fully functioning, running the country from your colon? Or are you someone uncertain? @nausilis @aratidwell
vynson 10 months ago
I strongly disagree, these things can be disproven. Arguments that god or flying reindeer can't be disproven are just toys with the english language.
aratidwell 10 months ago
@aratidwell Strongly disagree all you like, you're wrong.
biggest312 10 months ago
@biggest312 So it's not possible to prove that there do not exist Nobel Prize winners below age 25?
holodenier2011 10 months ago
You most certainly can prove a negative and quite as easily as proving a positive. For example, prove the following:
There are no elephants in your ass.
Shouldn't take too long to prove.
vynson 10 months ago
@vynson how do we know these elephants are not microscopic and invisible? See the point is that you can't with absolutely certainty say that there are no elephants in your ass you can only say what is most likely, and thats the point of it.
ronocko 10 months ago
@ronocko I hypothesize that MLK Jr. is walking around in your room right now.
comeonfolks 10 months ago
@comeonfolks We can test that hypothesis but we cannot currently know with absolute certainty whether or not there is in fact an MLK Jr. walking around my room, It's like Carl Sagan's green fire breathing dragon in his garage, the punch line being what is the difference between a heatless fire breathing, flying, intangible dragon and no dragon at all. We can't absolutely know but we don't have to have absolute certainty when we can determine what is most likely.
ronocko 10 months ago
@vynson I suspect there are not elephants in my ass. I suspect this strongly. Were it be the case elephants which were smaller than my previous conceptual understanding had led me to believe, I might however have to call myself wrong. Or perhaps were I in fact dreaming from a cross-species un-orthodox cloning operating table. Unlikely, yes.
nausiis 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vynson I suspect there are not elephants in my ass. I suspect this strongly. Were it be the case elephants which were smaller than my previous conceptual understanding had led me to believe, I might however have to call myself wrong. Or perhaps were I in fact dreaming from a cross-species un-orthodox cloning operating table. Unlikely, yes.
nausiis 10 months ago
I see being a skeptic as a very positive standpoint actually. You don't go saying "This is too crazy, it cannot be true, therefore I don't believe it", you say that something does not appear to be likely to be true but you actually suspend that and give it a chance to prove itself. Blind belief or rejection and healthy skepticism are sky and earth.
whade62000 11 months ago
9 people believe in flying reindeer.
TheAnniepies 11 months ago
Suppose it is possible to prove the claim, "it is impossible to prove a negative" to be true (abbreviated now as Δ). Then it has been proven that Δ is true. But Δ is itself a negative, contradicting the fact that it is impossible to prove a negative. Hence, it is impossible to prove Δ is true. Now, let Σ be the statement, "it is impossible to prove Δ is true." Since I have shown that Σ is true, and since Σ is a negative, this shows Δ to be false. Therefore, it is possible to prove a negative.
holodenier2011 11 months ago
We can prove this negative: Prove that the earth is not flat!
I think that the "can't prove a negative" rule of thumb is too general, perhaps it should be something closer to: "We can't prove a negative other than for negative properties of known quantities."
ninjatoothpaste 1 year ago
@ninjatoothpaste Actually, you don't prove that the Earth is not flat... you're proving that the Earth is round. By extension this "means" that the Earth is not flat. However, there can always be a possibility that in some way... that the Earth is both round AND flat. You have not proven that the Earth is not flat, you have only proven that it is round.
That may seem confusing but if you look at light... which you can prove is a particle... yet you can also prove is a wave
emeraldlobster 1 year ago 13
@emeraldlobster Fair point, though if we're prepared to go that far we have to be prepared to move out of the world of the objective and into the world of the objectively abstract, we have to ask the questions: 1. What is flat? 2. What is round/spherical? We can't have disproof without proof, and we can have neither without a claim to proove or disproove, and a claim that isn't accurately defined cannot have an accurately defined answer. Continued in reply comment :)
ninjatoothpaste 1 year ago
If we scaled the earth down to the size of a snooker ball it would be smoother by quite a considerable amount, yet if asked which was more round most people would go with the snooker ball because it's smoother. So to answer the question "Which is smoother?" We need to define the conditions. Given that most people aren't great thinkers we need to know what they mean, and what they mean by flat vs round is either ___ or O as observed from a distance. That's the image in their minds eye.
ninjatoothpaste 1 year ago
And given that's what they mean, the images from space and other science more than constitutes proof that the earth isn't flat; btw your argument that we've proven that the earth is round and by extension that it's not flat is true enough, but it's really just arguing semantics as that's so obvious that it's omitted in casual conversation, you may have a point that less educated people may not realise this however. :) Nice discussion, you've sparked off a fire in my mind :D
ninjatoothpaste 1 year ago
@ninjatoothpaste It isn't about arguing semantics, it's about the onus of proof of a claim lying with he claiming it to be valid- ie; if someone claims that the earth IS flat, he can levitate, there is a heaven/hell, he has ESP, etc, the onus of proof is on HIM to provide substantiating evidence to demonstrate and "prove" the validity of his claim, and NOT on his skeptics to prove that his claim ISN'T valid. You can't just make a claim & say "Prove me wrong"... you must prove yourself RIGHT.
dog1dog2 8 months ago
@dog1dog2 I know and agree that the onus is on the one making the claim to provide proof. However "you can't prove a negative" is a lazy way of putting it, especially given that there CAN be "evidence of absence", and since that particular argument is often used in debate with religious folk and their insight into these matters isn't conducive to proper understanding of the meaning of it... (continued...)
ninjatoothpaste 8 months ago
@ninjatoothpaste I would actually put it this way: a negative is always proven by the fact of absence, unless it is proven otherwise.
IP6000 8 months ago
@dog1dog2 (cont...) for this reason when debating the burden of proof I would suggest that the argument should be put forward for the practicality of direct evidence over inferred or deduced evidence of [the] absence of a positive proposition. But then thinking about it that would still have little chance of getting through to a devout religious person... In short I agree with you, and I understand what it means to say you can't prove a negative, I just don't think it's clear enough for some.
ninjatoothpaste 8 months ago
Interesting stuff, who knew you could actually learn something off of youtube.
abe2517 5 months ago
@emeraldlobster Yes but, you have proven that the earth is not flat by proving that the earth is round. Right?
MrMisharos 5 months ago
@emeraldlobster
Earth is not round... and is not flat either...
Light is not a wave, though particles can behave like that if their path is distorted.
"Light, which is emitted and absorbed in tiny "packets" called photons, exhibits properties of both waves and particles."←Wikipedia.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 2 months ago
Comment removed
Kirk00077 1 month ago
@emeraldlobster You're forgetting non-contradiction. Nothing can exhibit mutually-exclusive properties (i.e., nothing can freeze and burn simultaneously); Earth is either round or flat, and since it is proven to be round, it can't be flat. Its observed flatness is due to its enormous size relative to the human scale.
In your example of light, keep in mind that waves and particles are only models we use to predict how systems will behave; we can't directly experience what light "really" is.
Kirk00077 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is it true that James Randi is a pedophile and that a telephone recording of him talking dirty to a boy keeps getting removed from websites?
JesusDillinger 1 year ago
But a claim of a positive? One case of psychic ability under strictly controlled conditions would change the world. So far its highly unlikely and no one has yet come forward with the ability to do so under testable conditions. Do psychic powers REALLY exist? Not a clue. So far the evidence does not lean toward it at all.
shkotay 1 year ago
That you cant prove a negative is based on the on probability guys. You cannot prove a negative, you can only show more and more how unlikely an event is. You cannot rule it out entirely. Philosophically and other means perhaps, but events no.
Proving a positive, same issue: e.g "By the results of the experiment, it is very likely that this is the case". P values go all to infinitely .000000001. We can be very sure this is the case. But if a new theory comes, old fact tossed out.
shkotay 1 year ago
I dont know but here comes another one
B1aDK 1 year ago
fuck you randi... santa is real
oldirtybastard213 1 year ago
what does he mean by a negative?
buschgardens1 1 year ago
@buschgardens1 He means that you cant ever prove that something doesn't exist. It's easy to prove that something does exist by just finding an example of it, however unless you can look everywhere and test everything in every possible way you'll never be able to conclusively say that something doesnt exist.
richard343 1 year ago
@richard343 Thanks
buschgardens1 1 year ago
I know I'm going to get a lot of hate from people educated beyond their capacity to understand, but in some cases you CAN prove negatives.
It's called "proof by contradiction" (formerly known as "reductio as absurdum"). Used formally by mathematics and philosophy and informally by everyone. If the definition of something results in a logical contraction that thing is false.
I can prove there are no two integers with a ratio that is precisely root 2. Also that there are no square triangles.
bdf2718 1 year ago
@bdf2718
by definition a triangle cannot be square... just as the shortest distance between two points is a straight line ... those are axioms ... or self-evident
ofcourse you can prove it... just that it doesnt fall in the same type of negative that randi is talking about
oldirtybastard213 1 year ago
@oldirtybastard213
Which bit of "proof by contradiction" do you not understand? Any concept with a description that contradicts itself is clearly false. Square triangle is obvious. But the same method of proof by contradiction shows that you can NEVER find two integers with a ratio that is precisely the square root of 2. That's harder to show. Which is why I threw "square triangle" into the shallow end of the intelligence pool.
bdf2718 1 year ago
@bdf2718
listen man... its been a long fuckin time since i studied integers and shit in highschool .. so I cant rememer if what you're saying is true... anyway... the description of a fuckin raindeer does not state if it can fly or NOT ... so you cant fuckin apply no damn reductio as absurdum.
Again ..You and Randi are talking about two different concepts .. a triangle is a simple selfevident concept ...a
raindeer's ability to fly is a concept that does not define it self ...
oldirtybastard213 1 year ago
@oldirtybastard213
Sheesh, you're too stupid to fucking google? I guarantee you that no pair of integers with a ratio that is the precise square root of 2 exist. I bet you my life upon that. And if you'd googled for "proof by contradiction" that would have been the commonest example you found.
You're too fucking thick to even grasp that "square triangle" was aimed at fucktards like you who do not understand integers. It's self-fucking-evidently false. Proof by contradiction for fucktards
bdf2718 1 year ago
@bdf2718
again with the fuckin integers.. where exactly have I contradicted you on the concept of there being no two different integers with a ratio that is the precise square root of two ???
again.. the integer proposition is a mathematical truth ... I dont give a flying fuck how hard it is to show compared to the concept of there beying no such thing as a square triangle its the same fuckin thing...
not the same fuckin thing as a flying deer.
and dont insult me on the internet you coward
oldirtybastard213 1 year ago
@oldirtybastard213
I know you're hard of thinking so I'll take this slowly.
Randi said it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. He gave an EXAMPLE of flying reindeer.
I stated, correctly, that it is possible to prove that SOME things do not exist. Randi over-generalized.
You are too fucking stupid to even google for "proof by contradiction." Instead you attempt to distract from Randi's over-generalization by citing his example.
Proof by contradiction. It works.
bdf2718 1 year ago
@oldirtybastard213
If you were to quickly define flying in a conceptual way, then you might say its the defiance of gravity by (based on what we know) utilizing the atmosphere.
Reindeer don't have the kind of tools to do this, and at least aren't given the details of having them when little children or bs parents make the claim that they exist.
So, doesn't that make reindeer an axiom and therefore falls into the same category of that triangle that cannot be a square?
MikeDecipher 1 year ago
I think the thing about saying reindeer can fly is more a claim of: a different mechanism of being able to fly.
I'm surprised 'super-genius-randi' didn't point that out. Instead, he talks about things on their surface, like most objective thinkers.
MikeDecipher 1 year ago
James is Evergreen ....Keep it up
Anandkshivanna 1 year ago
So cruel! Can't we just wind tunnel test them instead?
damnbiker 1 year ago
They can fly, they were just flying straight down.
zealotbleeds 1 year ago 48
Wow. Santa Clause is so smart!
/ kidding of course!
dlite922 1 year ago
Only to you... and all followers of poor selective knowledge
zumobster 1 year ago
@zumobster
Well I cant speak for your knowledge tho, but seems your arrogance is working ok
But why not analyse what the fuck your talking about instead of jumping around, saying "Only i know, and you know nothing", I mean with your amazing self confidence, you gotta be able to show that you are right or wrong atleast, else you force me to categorize you as arrogant internet prick.
Emeal4Dinner 1 year ago
Is it possible to not prove a negative? Can you prove a positive?
robopoet 1 year ago
You can still wake up about the blind trust in science. Somewhere in the bak of your mind you now it. You don't have to make a choise to believe anything because you are smart enough to figure out reality without the answers in science.
Science is all about giving answers while the questions are being studied.
(Max Planck):
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die".
(i love that one)
zumobster 1 year ago
Would youn really expect that Randi James or even Sagan, Degrassetyseon will ever ADMIT mistakes? No scientist ever done that! Not even creepy UFOlogists or conspiracy fanatics.
Admitting your mistakes is game over...
If you would cheat on your wife for 10 years in a 20 year marraige then you can not expect your wife will thank you for it. It can be an act of good in compare to longer time but the main factor is you can not be taken seriously by the ones loving you. (you will be hated!)
zumobster 1 year ago
@zumobster
Sure Scientists can admit mistakes, really you can go into the honesty of the person who is a scientist. Maybe they dont want to be honest, being human and making mistakes. certainly we cant blame the Scientific investigative method for that, just yesterday my high school chem teacher did so. we where measuring phosphoric acid in coke, and by accident we forgot to shake the CO2 out of it :)
Emeal4Dinner 1 year ago
@Emeal4Dinner
Not if its your line of work... Like me... i studied UFO's for many years... I can finally admit that the government is behind it and erasing true history... If i was a famous UFOlogist wich made money on people then the obvious result for me = shut up... If not... Nobody would ever take me serious again... (like in all science)
Science is the power of status and never the truth (go read some random books from a library and then you'll understand)
zumobster 1 year ago
@zumobster
Yeah sure, Ill assume you mean the American Government and not the Government in my little bell end of northern Europe :) I would ask in on what evidence proves that the government is doing that?
But Science is all about the investigation, and if you claim that you know that something is so, but cant show it, then you are a fool. You have to convince them and the evidence become clear through scientific investigation.
I think you should stop reading random books lol
Emeal4Dinner 1 year ago
@Emeal4Dinner
Well... Good one... Proof evolution for me.
I can absolutely show you how the truth works but its up to you to follow the path. No God, No evolution and no UFO's... It will take you 1 year atleast to understand the meaning of all in this world. Free-energy exist wiether people obey the system or not. Common sense is that many alternatives for science in free-energy exist but NO EDUCATION (try to put a con. theory on that) Evidence? Do you really want proof against your worldview?
zumobster 1 year ago
@zumobster
You want me, a student well enough in grade A with higher technical education, but hardly close to an university degree, to demonstrate the fact of Evolution. Why dont you go ask a biology professor for that m8 :)
But WTF, we are talking about Science, skeptical thinking and how they work and suddenly you throw out wanting me to prove things to you, I dont know much about evolution, at least not enough to say its a fact. If I find it important, ill find out.
Emeal4Dinner 1 year ago
@Emeal4Dinner
Hmm... biologists certainly speak of evolution... ex-biologists tell otherwise...
Presidents in duty always tell the truth... ex-presidents don't...
UFOlogists always explain why UFO's exist... rather then conspiracy theoriests leaving it out...
Religions are always talking about God... but know nothing about Satan...
Organs are desperatly needed in medical industry... no advertising at all...
Nicotine is an addiction... while the addiction is the drug...
zumobster 1 year ago
@zumobster
What world view are you presuming I have I wonder O.o
Emeal4Dinner 1 year ago
@Emeal4Dinner
The truth about New World Order wich is totally based on religion...
Yes... my religion is "realistian"...
(totally fucking brand new)
zumobster 1 year ago
@zumobster
You use more commas than a Japanese emo Anime lol
Emeal4Dinner 1 year ago
@zumobster
I am sorry m8, all you have said in previous comments MAKE ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE TO ME :)
You talk nonsense!
Emeal4Dinner 1 year ago
James Randi suck completaly and so for the people buying his shit... Ill put this to the test.
There is no science involved if a woman takes of her bra and 3 boobs are visible. Eyewitnesses are making the claim but a scientist can not use a witness to prove something "scientists" can not explain. (this means: science vs the wisdom of a witness... science lose) Its the same when a psychiatrist would ask his patient what is wrong with him/her wich is no scientific study at all! (you suck!)
zumobster 1 year ago
James Randi is a hypocrite, he clearly is a debunker. The truth hurts.
bigguy200 1 year ago
where is he lecturing? he's not an academic or a scholar, he's an ex-stage magician. Who is he lecturing to?
lookatmepleasesir 1 year ago
awesome.
zabbok 1 year ago
"I don't know, but here comes another one!"
spinycrayfish 1 year ago 3
I find James Randi amusing because he is a great orator. He can hold a lecture talking about a potentially dry subject and keep your interest as well as make it somewhat fun.
EHLRONTAY 1 year ago
"that's a dirty laugh lady. . . but i like it."
ahhhh, homosexual compensation.
lol
GodlessHippie 1 year ago
if you cannot prove a negative, how do you prove that you can't prove a negative?
redryan20000 1 year ago 30
@redryan20000 > Because it's an axiom.
HentaiGuy42 1 year ago
Comment removed
koffadaboost 1 year ago
@redryan20000 He isn't proving that you can't prove a negative. He's explaining why you can't prove a negative. If there was a negative to what he was saying (in the context of him trying to PROVE that you can't prove a negative) then that would mean you could prove a negative; completely negating everything he talked about in the video.
Erutan409 1 year ago 5
@redryan20000 not being able to prove a negative is a positive statement
sakisakasan 1 year ago
@redryan20000 You can prove a positive = You cannot prove a non-positive = You cannot prove a negative. Logical equivalency FTW.
foofighter20x 11 months ago
@redryan20000 Thats not a negative. Just cause it has "can not" in the sentence doesnt make it negative. negative Means: Nowhere in reality exists. That applies only for empirical claims anyway, not for logic.
omnissient 11 months ago 2
@redryan20000 because the prove that you can't prove a negative is not a negative, it is a positive; so you are proving a positive not a negative
cussi84 10 months ago
@redryan20000 Because it's a statement of logic, not a physical test.
dpotter2113 9 months ago
@redryan20000 by proving that you can't prove that there is proof for a negative. But you would fail to arrive at that proof because there IS proof for a negative: proof by contradiction. :-)
cmario00 8 months ago
@redryan20000 you cant
xmasterfunk 8 months ago in playlist Atheist stuff
@xmasterfunk No you can prove a negative. E.g. You can prove there are no even prime numbers greater than two. You can prove that there are no odd numbers divisible by 2. How? Reductio ad absurdum.
drrobertoboogie97 8 months ago
@redryan20000 Because proving the impossibility of proving a negative is not negative in itself.
IP6000 8 months ago
@redryan20000 Logical thinking.
dutchii 7 months ago
@redryan20000 Because when you say you can't prove that something doesn't exist you put two negatives in the same sentence, and whe know that (-) + (-) = positive.
albertofilho79 7 months ago
if they apply this to modern science, it will collapse. since every theory seems to have at least one reindeer flying, but because a million don't we accept them as reality.
karmicide 1 year ago
@karmicide you should read what i typed to Christianjr4, cuz i dont feel like replyin to you also (too lazy.lol)
ArmanCortez1 1 year ago
1:55 Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence. because the evidence is absent despite searching for it in the places where it should be if it were true (absence of fat man in the chimney). Which is different from not having searched an having absent evidence. Which indeed wouldnt count.
omnissient 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
With all due respect to the enlightened self rationalist Mr. James Randi, he doesn't know what he's talking about. You can prove a negative, and there isn't one professional logician who agrees with Randi that you can't. The statement "You can't prove a negative" IS A NEGATIVE. Therefore if this negative statement were true it would be false. How about the negative claim that 2+2 does not equal 5. Would any rational person say you cannot prove that lo? Randi needs to take a class in logic.
Christianjr4 1 year ago
@Christianjr4 i can tell just by your name why you would think what you just posted, but your name aside...here's food for thought, can you prove that 2+2 will ALWAYS, under EVERY circumstance and DIFFERENT settings that it will ALWAYS equal 4, of course you cant, maybe in universe B it equals 5. Now...OBVIOUSLY...for most people and places, 2+2 does equal 4 for convenience. But in science and LIFE for that matter perpeutal uncertainty is always a rule one should abide by. Hope this helps.
ArmanCortez1 1 year ago
@ArmanCortez1
It has nothing to do with my name and everything to do with simple basic reasoning. You don't have to be a Christian to see the obvious flaw in his statement. Indeed, that's why I said there was no professional logician who agrees with Randi that you can't prove a negative (and I bet my life on that fact). More importantly, however, you're simply wrong. Mathematical deductions are true by necessity, which means there are no possible circumstances in which they are not true...cont
Christianjr4 1 year ago
@ArmanCortez1
...Such a mathematical deduction as 2+2 = 4 is on a par with the law of non-contradiction. There's just no possible world/circumstance in which those could be false under the description they hold. Finally, your claim that these negative statements can't be proved in all circumstances makes the whole point of the original claim trivial. You could also say the same thing equally for all positive statements, but then why make the claim "you can't prove a negative" in the first place.
Christianjr4 1 year ago
@Christianjr4 LIKE I SAID....in universe B 2+2 might NOT equal 4, it just so happens that in our universe it does but even then we do it for CONVENIENCE , in someone else's mind 2+2 might equal 146, granted we wont change the fact that it equals 4 just because one person thinks it 146 for the sake of CONVENIENCE, or maybe in ANOTHER dimension that YOU cant PROVE OR DISPROVE exists(hence this arguement) 2+2 will equal 7 there. For the sake of ORDER we say 2+2=4.
ArmanCortez1 1 year ago
Comment removed