If negative cannot be proved

[PureX]

They aren't proof, but they are evidence that can inform a person's conclusions about whether Bigfoot is likely to exist or not.

Yes, they are all forms and degrees of evidence, if you accept them as such. But most people pick and choose what they will accept as valid evidence to support their bias in favor of a specific conclusion. And some kinds of evidence are logically more compelling that others. And we all have our own criteria for how much evidence is required to reach the standard for "reasonable proof".

Which is why these kinds of debates are never easy, simple, or obvious, in spite of frequent assertions to the contrary.

 

[PureX]

Yes, logical proof of non-existence of something, say pink unicorns or Bigfoot, is famously not possible to establish, unless it can be shown that the entity in question must have universally observable effects that can be tested for.

The positive corollary to that of course is why you can't prove a scientific theory true. No matter how many times you confirm it, there may always be some new class of observation to be made that could show it in error.

As I've observed on other thread, this is where belief, based on the trust we place in experience, enters the picture. After you've spent enough time investigating Bigfoot sightings without getting any more than a bit of dog hair, you are entitled to believe they don't exist. After you've found enough fossils showing a link between species and seen how their DNA similarities match the apparent fossil lineages, you are entitled to believe the theory of evolution.

Even in this case, it's very important to understand the specific parameters of the proposition being asserted or denied, to understand what it means to "believe". Simply saying that "I don't believe in Bigfoot" tells is pretty much nothing. What version of the Bigfoot theory are you rejecting? What do you mean by "believe in"? What is your criteria for accepting such an assertion? And so on. Without including these in the assertion, the assertion is basically meaningless.

 

[exchemist]

Even in this case, it's very important to understand the specific parameters of the proposition being asserted or denied, to understand what it means to "believe". Simply saying that "I don't believe in Bigfoot" tells is pretty much nothing. What version of the Bigfoot theory are you rejecting? What do you mean by "believe in"? What is your criteria for accepting such an assertion? And so on. Without including these in the assertion, the assertion is basically meaningless.

No it isn't. We all have to live in the real world, in which belief or trust has to stand in for certainty, and the commonly understood meaning of terms such as "Bigfoot" or "pink unicorn" have to stand in for a paragraph of precise description of these alleged phenomena.

But I do agree with you we should not call a "proof" something that is just a reasonable belief supported by evidence or by absence thereof.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, they are all forms and degrees of evidence, if you accept them as such.

Even if you don't accept evidence, it's still evidence.

But most people pick and choose what they will accept as valid evidence to support their bias in favor of a specific conclusion.

Which is why it's important to identify our biases and try to address them.

And some kinds of evidence are logically more compelling that others. And we all have our own criteria for how much evidence is required to reach the standard for "reasonable proof".

Yes, and even if that standard varies from person to person, everyone has one.

Even if you can't conclusively prove that your car will or won't spontaneously fill with water by some unknown mechanism, you still either carry a snorkel in your car or you don't.

At some point, a theoretical uncertainty crosses the line into practical certainty, since it's often the case that living as if something is false and living as if it's true will be mutually exclusive, so you can't do both.

 

[james blunt]

No it isn't. We all have to live in the real world, in which belief or trust has to stand in for certainty, and the commonly understood meaning of terms such as "Bigfoot" or "pink unicorn" have to stand in for a paragraph of precise description of these alleged phenomena.

But I do agree with you we should not call a "proof" something that is just a reasonable belief supported by evidence or by absence thereof.

Dear Mr Chemist, if we could measure the charge of the ground before a lightning strike it would measure 0 charge wouldn't it ?

When the negative or positive lightning comes from the ground this proves negative and positive charge of the ground. A binary energy of negative and positive showing each individual charge.

(-e) + (+1e) = 0q

Showing us negative energy exists in an atom.

Now space-time between masses or electrical fields if you like, are neutralised by -0.5q + 0.5q = 0q

Mathematically showing a negative energy nullifying the positive energy .

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Even if you don't accept evidence, it's still evidence.

No it isn't. It's only evidence if you decide to call it that way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No it isn't. It's only evidence if you decide to call it that way.

Evidence is a fact that supports a conclusion, either by itself or in combination with other facts.

Whether a fact can support a premise is an objective matter of logic and reason, not anyone's subjective opinion.

 

[james blunt]

Evidence is a fact that supports a conclusion, either by itself or in combination with other facts.

Whether a fact can support a premise is an objective matter of logic and reason, not anyone's subjective opinion.

What about when an experiment proves the presented evidence?

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Evidence is a fact that supports a conclusion, either by itself or in combination with other facts.

Whether a fact can support a premise is an objective matter of logic and reason, not anyone's subjective opinion.

No it isn't. There are no facts.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No it isn't. There are no facts.

Is that a fact?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What about when an experiment proves the presented evidence?

What about it?

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Is that a fact?

No. It's the truth.

 

[james blunt]

What about it?

The simple way to prove negative energy is to devise an experiment to prove its existence by making an anti-gravity vehicle.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

The simple way to prove negative energy is to devise an experiment to prove its existence by making an anti-gravity vehicle.

Is that sentence full?

 

[james blunt]

Is that sentence full?

Of course not .

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The simple way to prove negative energy is to devise an experiment to prove its existence by making an anti-gravity vehicle.

Okay... but I'm not sure how this ties into the discussion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. It's the truth.

But not a fact.

You seem to be operating with a diferent definition of "fact" (or "truth" or both) than the rest of us. Care to share what you mean?

 

[james blunt]

Okay... but I'm not sure how this ties into the discussion.

You will just have to have some trust that it is related to the discussion.

 

[PureX]

No it isn't. We all have to live in the real world, in which belief or trust has to stand in for certainty, and the commonly understood meaning of terms such as "Bigfoot" or "pink unicorn" have to stand in for a paragraph of precise description of these alleged phenomena.

You missed my point. What I was calling meaningless is an unspecified and unconsidered assertion about what one does or does not believe. People say these things all the time, and the people they say them to have no idea what they mean by saying it because it's never clarified, neither in the mind of the one making the statement nor in the mind of one hearing it.

"I don't believe in Bigfoot."

What does that even mean? I have no idea how much or how little the person making this statement has considered this question, or to what extent he has researched the possibility. It's just an empty negation, or a frivolous comment, apparently.

But I do agree with you we should not call a "proof" something that is just a reasonable belief supported by evidence or by absence thereof.

 

[PureX]

Even if you don't accept evidence, it's still evidence.

I agree, but if I have rejected it as invalid, it is no longer acting as reasonable evidence to me.

Which is why it's important to identify our biases and try to address them.

I agree. Particularly our biases concerning what is and is not "valid" evidence, to us.

Yes, and even if that standard varies from person to person, everyone has one.

Probably, but it's been my observation that human standards for "proof" tend to move with the winds of whim and desire more than anything else.

Even if you can't conclusively prove that your car will or won't spontaneously fill with water by some unknown mechanism, you still either carry a snorkel in your car or you don't.

Yes. We humans have to live in the world via faith and probability, because we simply don't have the knowledge that would be required to live in it with surety.

At some point, a theoretical uncertainty crosses the line into practical certainty, since it's often the case that living as if something is false and living as if it's true will be mutually exclusive, so you can't do both.

Excellent observation. But I think the problems begin when we ignore the difference between probability (a practical certainty) and actual certainty. And it's in the realm of "what I believe" that this ignorance occurs most often.