.
Only if you can't remember which way the < or > goes.
Is something bad gonna happen now since I "said it?"
Hello Rosie:
Not harder - IMPOSSIBLE.. Why?? Cause you can't PROVE that nothing happened.
excon
Because humans do not have awareness of everything that exists..
Hello A,
If it was things that EXIST, what you say would be true.. But, we're talking about things that DON'T exist. How do you prove THAT?
excon
The question is how do you disprove something not how can you prove something..
The question never mentioned anything about it existing or not existing..
Proving a negative is part of the scientific method. You can either prove a hypothesis is true directly, or you can prove that it can't be true by proving its negative is possible.
If my thesis is that all trees are yellow pine, for example, I don't have to necessarily test all trees, it's easier to find just one tree that is not a yellow pine to prove my hypothesis wrong. It's called the Falsifiable Principle.
Sorry for getting all scientifickee and showoffy, couldn't resist.
It depends greatly upon the framing of the proposition and whether one is demanding absolute proof or the lesser standard based upon the consistency of the available evidence.
For example, consider the negative proposition, "No black swans exist." One can cite the evidence of an arbitrarily large number of non-black swans as evidence that no black swans exist, but that doesn't PROVE the non-existence of black swans. So long as we don't have infinite knowledge of the Universe, such propositions are (in principle) unproveable.
In general, the above example is what people mean by "you cannot prove a negative" No amount of evidence suggesting proposition X is true can, in the absence of perfect knowledge, prove that Not Proposition X is not true.
Is it because of possibility? Is it because anything is possible? There cannot be proof of no black swans because of the fact that it is still possible and therefore cannot be proven? If so, then there is no always and there is not a never. Because in the face of this wisdom that you explain, we always have what is possible.
I think I just explained what you already said, only not as well. But, just in case, I'll throw it out there for you, Old School.
Apo
logies MS but I don't understand this response at all. Thank you for your reply and Happy Monday.
Another reply I don't get.
Does it have to be about a happening excon? I can prove I dislike Trump. That isn't a happening. That is a state of being. I
can prove I'm not wealthy by giving you access to my bank account, modest investments.So maybe you need to clarify what you mean because I don't follow. Thank you for your reply! :)
Apologies Adam but I don't understand your response. Thank you and Happy Monday! :)
I LOVE scientifickee. Keep it up as much as you would like to on any of my question threads. You're not being showoffy at all. I understood the example you gave NHP. So it IS
possible to prove a negative then. Is it a lot harder though? Thank you for your reply and Happy Monday! :)
I got it OS. I understand what you mean. Unless you are aware of ALL that exists you cannot make such a pronouncement with complete assurance it is true. Mahalo! :) Because there is that pesky part about which you know nothing that may refute the proposition. :)
Hello Rosie i will try an example to demonstrate my answer..
Lets use the existence of God..
The only way a person could KNOW and prove the Non existence of God, is if they had total situational awareness of every place in existence.. Since we humans do not have total situational awareness of all that exists then it follows that no one can prove the Non- existence of God.. So proving the negative position "" God does not exist "" is impossible for us human beings..
