PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Nature is only understood with arbitrarily high, never perfect, accuracy.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Negatives could be proved
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
You would have to test a lot of humans.
No... you are providing evidence that shows that your first statement may be correct, not that your null hypothesis is wrong.
The best example of why a negative can not be proven is the "black swan" analogy.
In science nothing is ever "proven" it is just supported with and accepted due to evidence or lack of evidence. Science always leaves room for error and new evidence.
wa:do
Ps... there is no evidence that mermaids exist outside of folklore or misidentification... however, this isn't proof that they don't exist. They could be extinct and we have yet to find fossil or subfossil remains, they could be endangered and elusive and so on. (There are whale species we only know of from a few sightings for example)
So the best that science can say is: "there is no evidence that mermaids actually exist".
"There's no such thing as a silly debate," he replied ironically.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Please elaborate your viewpoint.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
What makes nature perfect? I don't think science could make it perfect.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
I do not understand the question.
otokage007
Well-Known Member
You would have to test a lot of humans.
As many as for any other about-humans experiment.
You are right, but "for the wise to understand, few words are needed". When OP made his statement, he was implying that "well you can prove a possitive, but what about a negative?". It won't really help to say: "you actually can prove nothing, science doesn't work that way". His use of the word "prove" is just a way to save words. Or so I interpreted it!
My point is, the statement "humans don't have 80 million red cells", is true (to be picky, you can exchange the word "true" for "highly accurate due to the evidence we posses"), because we have a lot of evidence that support that statement, and no evidence against it. And as you see, it's a negative statement.
I agree with the OP that some people have kind of a "blind faith" that negatives can't be proven. I don't know where did they read this but it's quite extended, not only on this forums lol. Actually, I think the only thing science can not "prove", is simply what can not be tested.
Last edited:
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Really? And what is a proper sample size for a population numbering 7 billion?
Prove and support are very different concepts and it's important that people understand this... especially considering the context of anti-science and creationist mumbo-jumbo.
Actually to be picky, your statement is false. Humans are estimated to have billions of red blood cells at any given time, therefore we do have 80 million red blood cells.... plus an order of magnitude more.
Additionally, even if your statement were correct, it still wouldn't be proving a negative... it would disproving a specific positive statement.
I think you need to review the "black swan" analogy to see why people are reluctant to accept "proving a negative".
Logically you can "prove a negative" but when it comes to scientific experimentation you can only support a hypothesis and demonstrate a theory.
Proof is logic, maths or rum... not science.
wa:do
Prove it.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Immortal flame is most correct. Negatives can be proven via contradiction.
Otokage007 is also right, though the words are slightly off.
Take the blood-cells concept.
Hypothesis- humans have ....
null hypothesis- no humans have...
The proof by contradiction here is that one human contradicts the null hypothesis and renders credit to the hypothesis. Now, this does not mean that the hypothesis is true. This only means that the hypothesis is supported. As more and more studies are done, the hypothesis is supported by more evidence and the rejection of more null hypotheses. In this manner the theory that all humans have about.... becomes more solidified and accepted.
The point here is that negatives can be proven by contradiction as Immortal Flame has already suggested. But, there is a further contention by some that suggests that non-existence can not be proven. I again disagree. Let us assume that there exists a being X that instantaneously consumes all carbon based life the moment carbon based life is generated such that no carbon based life exists beyond unicellular proportion.
Now, the observable contradiction is that multi-cellular carbon based life does exist therefore such a being does not exist. Sure there might be a being that consumes some carbon based life instantaneously, but the non-existence of a being that consumes all carbon based life instantaneously has been proved.
Bottom line- you can prove a negative. This is called proof by contradiction.
Otokage007 is also right, though the words are slightly off.
Take the blood-cells concept.
Hypothesis- humans have ....
null hypothesis- no humans have...
The proof by contradiction here is that one human contradicts the null hypothesis and renders credit to the hypothesis. Now, this does not mean that the hypothesis is true. This only means that the hypothesis is supported. As more and more studies are done, the hypothesis is supported by more evidence and the rejection of more null hypotheses. In this manner the theory that all humans have about.... becomes more solidified and accepted.
The point here is that negatives can be proven by contradiction as Immortal Flame has already suggested. But, there is a further contention by some that suggests that non-existence can not be proven. I again disagree. Let us assume that there exists a being X that instantaneously consumes all carbon based life the moment carbon based life is generated such that no carbon based life exists beyond unicellular proportion.
Now, the observable contradiction is that multi-cellular carbon based life does exist therefore such a being does not exist. Sure there might be a being that consumes some carbon based life instantaneously, but the non-existence of a being that consumes all carbon based life instantaneously has been proved.
Bottom line- you can prove a negative. This is called proof by contradiction.
otokage007
Well-Known Member
Well, I would say that non-existence can not be proven. Unless of course the being's existence contradicts reality. Another example is "a being X that by existing instantaneously makes all grass go red" well, we know grass is green so that being doesn't exist. I agree with you in this and of course in your example of the carbonconsumer-being. But what about a being like God? the mermaids? the flying spaggeti monster? harry potter?
You can't really prove that they don't exist. Can you?
You can't really prove that they don't exist. Can you?
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Be careful with declarative statements like "we know grass is green" :sarcastic
I introduce you to "Japanese blood-grass" which is unsurprisingly bright red.
You ran smack into the "black swan".
wa:do
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Curious George
Veteran Member
And science relies on logic
Wah-hoo
Wah-Hoo: A beautiful river near Solla Sollew, Where they never have troubles at least very few.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
More so on empiricism.And science relies on logic
Wah-hoo
Wah-Hoo: A beautiful river near Solla Sollew, Where they never have troubles at least very few.
wa:do
Curious George
Veteran Member
While empiricism may contrast from rationalism, empiricism still relies on logic.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
"Nature is only understood with arbitrarily high, never perfect, accuracy."
Sorry; I might have understood your sentence incorrectly.
Did you want to say that nature is understood with pretty high accuracy but it is never understood perfectly? Or you wanted to say that nature is perfected by science etc?
Sorry
otokage007
Well-Known Member
Be careful with declarative statements like "we know grass is green" :sarcastic
I introduce you to "Japanese blood-grass" which is unsurprisingly bright red.
You ran smack into the "black swan".
wa:do
I don't really like to re-quote myself. But I'll do it for you:
For the wise to understand, few words are needed.
If you didn't understand my statement, well it is really your problem, I'm sure not everyone here will be unable to grasp what I tried to say. No offence!
PS: And BTW, I said "an organism that makes ALL GRASS go red". I wasn't trying to be picky, but still your correction makes no sense.
Last edited:
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
It is understood with very high, but non-perfect, accuracy.