Proving a negative?

[tsg]

Very interesting thread! Just wanted to add a couple thoughts...

I agree with tsg's statement, so would the "correct" statement be "X has not been proven to exist" or "You have not provided overwhelming evidence that X exists" or "You have not provided more evidence [or more compelling evidence] of the existance of X than the evidence against X" or something similar?

I've decided on "I have not seen anything that would lead me to believe X exists/works/is true", with, depending on the circumstances, an additional "and plenty to lead me to believe that it doesn't/shouldn't/isn't". The claim at this point is not that there isn't any evidence, only that I haven't seen it. You want me to believe? Show me.

 

[Bri]

I've decided on "I have not seen anything that would lead me to believe X exists/works/is true", with, depending on the circumstances, an additional "and plenty to lead me to believe that it doesn't/shouldn't/isn't". The claim at this point is not that there isn't any evidence, only that I haven't seen it. You want me to believe? Show me.

I thought about statements such as this, but they are clearly opinions ("that would lead me to believe") rather than actual statements of fact as implied in the OP (proving a negative). In addition, they are opinions concerning the validity of another person's claim rather than a claim in and of themselves.

Opinions don't require the same burden of proof than a claim of fact would, so I'm wondering if there's any actual statement of fact that one could make that isn't an agnostic one (i.e. "It is impossible to know..." or something similar). It seems that such a statement would be based on "evidence" rather than "proof" but even a claim of "overwhelming" or "compelling" evidence against something would require evidence to support that the evidence is overwhelming or compelling.

-Bri

 

[drkitten]

Opinions don't require the same burden of proof than a claim of fact would, so I'm wondering if there's any actual statement of fact that one could make that isn't an agnostic one (i.e. "It is impossible to know..." or something similar). It seems that such a statement would be based on "evidence" rather than "proof" but even a claim of "overwhelming" or "compelling" evidence against something would require evidence to support that the evidence is overwhelming or compelling.

If you want to get legalistic, simply point out that "the preponderance of the evidence says that" or "most evidence says" or something like that.

There are, for example, many more documented failures of remote viewing under controlled circumstances then there are documented successes. In fact, I know of no documented successes -- which suggests that the evidence is in fact, "overwhelming."

 

[jmercer]

I've decided on "I have not seen anything that would lead me to believe X exists/works/is true", with, depending on the circumstances, an additional "and plenty to lead me to believe that it doesn't/shouldn't/isn't". The claim at this point is not that there isn't any evidence, only that I haven't seen it. You want me to believe? Show me.

To me, that's a good skeptical declaration, possibly classical.

 

[tsg]

I thought about statements such as this, but they are clearly opinions ("that would lead me to believe") rather than actual statements of fact as implied in the OP (proving a negative). In addition, they are opinions concerning the validity of another person's claim rather than a claim in and of themselves.

On further reflection, I think a better choice of words would be "that would convince me" rather than "that would lead me to believe". It's purely a semantic distinction but has less connotation of faith.

 

[Francois Tremblay]

So how is it done?

It's called falsification. Look it up.

Anyone who thinks negatives are unproveable or shouldn't be proven, is simply against the scientific method - because the scientific method does not exist if there is no falsification. Simple enough !