Are negatives impossible to prove?

[jrbogie]

Actually, the burden of proof is on the person who wants to convince another of something. Sometimes that's the positive argument, sometimes it's the negative.

ah but convincing is not prooving. clareance darrow once said, "i have to proove nothing in a court of law. all i have to do is convince the jury that i'm right". an argument, positive or negative, can convince but never prooves.

 

[Rin]

There is no triangle with more than 3 sides?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

ah but convincing is not prooving. clareance darrow once said, "i have to proove nothing in a court of law. all i have to do is convince the jury that i'm right". an argument, positive or negative, can convince but never prooves.

In that case, both sides have the equal burden. Something's not proven to be true or false until it's been proven true or false, and just because something hasn't been proven true doesn't mean it's been proven false.

 

[Willamena]

There is no triangle with more than 3 sides?

That's an interrogative, not a proposition.

The one who makes the positive assertion that "there is no triangle with more than 3 sides" has the so-called "burden of proof".

 

[Rin]

That's an interrogative, not a proposition.

The one who makes the positive assertion that "there is no triangle with more than 3 sides" has the so-called "burden of proof".

The meaning of a triangle is that it has three sides. Therefore,
P If an object is a triangle then it has 3 sides

If any object is described has a triangle and it does not have 3 sides then either 1) The person is using the word "triangle" with a different meaning and thus is not contradicting P or 2) The person is using triangle with the same meaning and is thus false.

Therefore there is no triangle without 3 sides.

 

[jrbogie]

In that case, both sides have the equal burden. Something's not proven to be true or false until it's been proven true or false, and just because something hasn't been proven true doesn't mean it's been proven false.

of course. my point was not that something proven to be true or false has been proven. my point was that convincing someone that something is true or false is not the same as proving it. christians are convinced that mary was a virgin. but it's never been proven to them.

 

[jrbogie]

The meaning of a triangle is that it has three sides. Therefore,
P If an object is a triangle then it has 3 sides

If any object is described has a triangle and it does not have 3 sides then either 1) The person is using the word "triangle" with a different meaning and thus is not contradicting P or 2) The person is using triangle with the same meaning and is thus false.

Therefore there is no triangle without 3 sides.

then why do they not call it a "triside"? i thought a triangle had three angles? hahahahahahahahahaha

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

of course. my point was not that something proven to be true or false has been proven. my point was that convincing someone that something is true or false is not the same as proving it. christians are convinced that mary was a virgin. but it's never been proven to them.

Right... so what exactly did you mean by "burden of proof", then? Burden for what?

 

[tumbleweed41]

A negative cannot be proven, otherwise it would not be a negative.
Since it cannot be proven, there are no facts to dispute.

N. I believe in Ghosts
P. I do not believe in the existence of Ghosts.
N. Can you prove that there are no Ghosts?
P. No, as there is no empirical evidence of the existence of Ghosts, I do not need to disprove them.

It is up to "N" to prove the existence of Ghosts in order to convince "P", not the other way around. At that time "P" can examine the evidence, and either show its flaws, or accept them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A negative cannot be proven, otherwise it would not be a negative.

Since it cannot be proven, there are no facts to dispute.

Sure there are.

For instance, in your example, if a person managed to demonstrate that either:

- when we die, our spirits go straight to Heaven, or
- when we die, that's it; there's no spirit left

Then the truth of either of these statements would imply that ghosts do not exist, since both are mutually exclusive with the idea that the spirits of dead people hang around on Earth haunting people.

Therefore, any evidence or argument in favour of either of those statements (or possibly others) would be support for the idea that they were true and therefore implicit support for the claim that ghosts do not exist.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Sure there are.

For instance, in your example, if a person managed to demonstrate that either:

- when we die, our spirits go straight to Heaven, or
- when we die, that's it; there's no spirit left

Both statements would require the person making the statement to provide the proof.
The person receiving the statement would not be required to provide proof to the contrary, only examine the evidence submitted.

 

[jrbogie]

Right... so what exactly did you mean by "burden of proof", then? Burden for what?

claims of truth require proof. they must be substantiated if one is to accept the claim as fact. the person making the claim inherits the burdon to prove/substantiate the claim if he wants to be held as credible. now shall we get past how i define words and return to the subject of the thread?