Proving A Negative/Burden Of Proof

TheMadFool

I've heard it being said more times than I care to count that anyone who demands proving a negative is being silly. This idea seems connected somehow to the notion of burden of proof.

Since these ideas are encountered most often in matters religious, I'll talk about them in that context. The results of these maxims or rules of thumb may vary in different situations.

That out of the way...

What does it mean to be asked to prove a negative?

Suppose a theist claims that god exists, and you being an atheist claims the contrary, god doesn't exist. If now you're asked to prove god doesn't exist, that would be proving a negative.

An analogy is in order...

Suppose you and your partner live together in a beautiful home somewhere. Your partner claims there's a bear in the house. If that claim is true, your partner should be able to show you the bear - fae would take you to the location where the bear is, point to it, and probably yell at you, "there! bear!". Imagine now yourself denying that there's a bear in the house. How would you prove to your partner that, "there isn't a bear in the house"? Well, you would have to take your partner to every single room in your house and show that there's no bear in any one of them. Quite,clearly, your task is more difficult compared to your partner's - you had to take your partner to all the rooms in your house while your partner only had to lead you to the room with the bear.

Make the following substitutions:
1. Your partner = theist
2. You = atheist
3. The house = the universe
4. The bear = god

Do you see the problem of proving a negative vis-à-vis god? To prove that god doesn't exist, one would have to have explored the entire universe - currently impossible - and even beyond - impossible.

Before I go any further be alert to the fact that proving a negative is an issue in the setting of an existential claim - to demonstrate something doesn't exist is nigh impossible compared to the doing the opposite, proving that thing exists. After all, if you assert something exists, you would have proven it to yourself, and that means you know where that thing is.

What about burden of proof? The received wisdom is that the person making a positive claim is the one who must produce the proof. This squares with what I've said. It's harder to prove a negative existential claim than a positive one; thus, if only because its easier, the burden of proof falls on those making positive existential claims.

Comments...

180 Proof

↪TheMadFool

For. Fuck's. Sake. Here's a negative proof: 'Self-evidently, there was not an adult elephant sitting on your chest while you typed the OP.' :yawn:

TheMadFool

For. Fuck's. Sake. Here's a negative proof: 'Self-evidently, there was not an adult elephant sitting on your chest while you typed the OP.' :yawn: — 180 Proof

Your argument boils down to, absence of evidence is evidence of absence which, fortunately or not, is not as good as you seem to think it is. For instance, back in the heydays of exploration, as Europe likes to call it, there was absolutely no evidence that germs caused diseases and yet here we are in the, medically speaking, antibiotic age. Many more similar stories are available at the click of a mouse.

To sum up, absence of evidence is evidence of absence ain't really the appropriate response to theistic claims of god's existence.

By the way, you're barking up the wrong tree. What I really want to do is investigate the rationale behind,

1. Demanding that someone prove a negative is asking that person to do the impossible and thus the expression, "you can't prove a negative".

Since you seem more concerned about the example (theism vs atheism) than what it's supposed to illustrate (you're not supposed to ask someone to prove a negative), you should rest easy in that this response is used often and to good effect by atheists.

2. The burden of proof falls on the one making a positive claim which in the case of religious debates means the theist has to furnish the proof and not the atheist.

180 Proof

↪TheMadFool

Read the link provided in "negative proof". Your post is a complete strawman / non sequitur. :roll:

TheMadFool

Read the link provided in "negative proof". Your post is completely strawman / non sequitur — 180 Proof

I have to admit I was trying to make an argument but non sequitur/strawman??? Please kindly expand and elaborate, if you don't mind.

TheMadFool

↪180 Proof

Also, since you don't seem to appreciate my interpretation of the two ideas discussed in the OP, why don't you share your own thoughts on them?

What's your take on,

1. You can't prove a negative

2. Burden of proof

?

This is a genuine inquiry, attempted in good faith.

180 Proof

↪TheMadFool

Can't say it any plainer. Your objection is fallacious on both accounts. I directed you to the link to show you what you've neglected to consider as background support in my first post.

↪TheMadFool

Proof you either haven't read my first post thoroughly or can't understand what you've read.

TheMadFool

Proof you either haven't read my first post thoroughly or can't ubderstand what you've read. — 180 Proof

Your entire argument hinges on this: absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I gave an appropriate response to that.

True that I might not have understood what you wrote but set that aside for the moment and, if it isn't too much trouble, answer the questions I posed to you in the previous post. Dumb it down for me will ya? Thanks.

180 Proof

↪TheMadFool

If you didn't understand what came before (proven by you repeating that strawman like a mantra), you won't understand what follows. Your questions of my first post are non sequiturs, Fool, and I ain't dumb enough to dumb it down any further.

TheMadFool

↪180 Proof

Hey, 180 Proof, cut me some slack here. I'll get back to you later, ok?

TheMadFool

Fool, and I ain't dumb enough to dumb it down any further. — 180 Proof

:rofl: Says you! :rofl:

That didn't come out right! :)

I meant to say it takes brains to dumb things down!

3017amen

↪TheMadFool

180's a good guy, but understandably, he tends to get a bit emotional/sensitive to defending his atheism.

Of course, we know EOG topics by nature are quite emotional undertakings anyway. Ironically enough, human feeling/sentience/phenomena itself, was found by Atheist Simon Blackburn, to be quite an abstract metaphysical undertaking... .

But getting back to proving a negative, is it true that the absence of evidence isn’t the evidence of absence?

Suppose you and your partner live together in a beautiful home somewhere. Your partner claims there's a bear in the house. If that claim is true, your partner should be able to show you the bear - fae would take you to the location where the bear is, point to it, and probably yell at you, "there! bear!". Imagine now yourself denying that there's a bear in the house. How would you prove to your partner that, "there isn't a bear in the house"? Well, you would have to take your partner to every single room in your house and show that there's no bear in any one of them. Quite, clearly, your task is more difficult compared to your partner's - you had to take your partner to all the rooms in your house while your partner only had to lead you to the room with the bear. — TheMadFool

The only concern with that analogy that I can see would be objectivity v subjectivity. Meaning, what kind of truth are we relying on here to prove a negative? While it is true that if an Atheist makes a positive statement that 'God does not exist", he is put in a precarious untenable position of proving or defending same, since you would still have to grapple with which methods of logic to apply in making that case.

For instance, in the real world (so to speak), if you wanted to argue from inference, Modus Tollens, phenomenology, the religious experience, ineffable truth's, real subjective truth's, so on and so forth, that is one method. But, if we are discussing ontological argumentations based on the a priori, then that's another method, which of course is generally less persuasive in either direction, positive or negative (with the exception of analogizing to QM, uncertainty principle, bivalence, non-contradiction, etc. where an existential theist-Christian existentialist like myself- could poke holes in absolute kinds of thinking/reasoning).

But then another irony rears it head there. And that's because the a priori also encompasses mathematical abstract structures as found in the natural world. And as such, in ontology that includes abstract features of consciousness, like human sentience and the like. So now we're back to metaphysics and to 180's highly emotionally charged defensive reactions :joke:

Lot's of ironies in life.

Nice OP TMF!

James Riley

↪TheMadFool

A digression: If God is the universe, then everywhere you look . . . .

But yeah, anyone can prove A = A; but how to prove A does not = -A. It's not my burden because I never made the claim.

Down The Rabbit Hole

↪TheMadFool

"One cannot prove a negative" and "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" are not always true. An example would be using sonar on a pond and finding no fish - you have proven a negative (there are no fish in the pond), and absence of evidence of the fish is evidence the fish are absent.

However, I don't see how we can rule out the existence of god/s. Even if we have one universe and it is finite, and we can search it fast enough to ensure it hasn't moved to a part we have already searched, the god/s could be in another dimension we can't access.

I think Occam's Razor might make god/s less likely, but it is not enough to shift me from agnosticism, to an active belief that there is no god.

Pinprick

@TheMadFool
@180 Proof

For what it’s worth, I think you’re both correct. 180’s example assumes that if a god exists, then miracles (and presumably other such phenomena) must also exist. Kind of like how if mules exist, then horses and donkeys must exist, only you’re reasoning backwards rather than forwards. Maybe that’s not the best example, but that’s all I can come up with at the moment. Anyway, if god’s existence necessarily entails whatever phenomena, and that phenomenon is lacking, then it’s logical to conclude god does not exist.

I think with TMF, there’s no assumption of any entailed consequences of god’s existence. Perhaps something like the Deistic conception of god that doesn’t interact with the physical world. In this case, there are no necessarily entailed consequences of god’s existence, therefore there’s nothing to point to to imply god doesn’t exist. The lack of the existence of miracles in this case doesn’t imply god doesn’t exist.

It's harder to prove a negative existential claim than a positive one; thus, if only because its easier, the burden of proof falls on those making positive existential claims. — TheMadFool

I think the burden of proof falls on the person making the positive claim because it asserts something beyond the default position, which is skepticism. I don’t think the difficulty of providing proof is a factor at all.

I think Occam's Razor might make god/s less likely, but it is not enough to shift me from agnosticism, to an active belief that there is no god. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Are you also agnostic on the existence of fairies? I think you’re using the wrong razor.

TonesInDeepFreeze

↪TheMadFool

We prove negations often.

You mentions bears. I'll mention termites. If you call an inspector to your house, and he reports "No termites", then you may say, "What's your basis? What's your proof?" And you shouldn't have to pay him if he just says, "Well, I can't be expected to prove a negative, now can I?" No, he may show you photos of the areas and surfaces or whatever. Or he may give as evidence his attestation that he examined the areas.

So there are instances where the burden of proof does go to person who claims a negation.

TheMadFool

I think the burden of proof falls on the person making the positive claim because it asserts something beyond the default position, which is skepticism. — Pinprick

Good one! The default position is skepticism but with the caveat that that's not the best concept to describe the epistemic state in question. I prefer to call it a tabula rasa kinda condition - a blank slate on which neither the proposition "god exists" nor "god doesn't exist" has been written. Skepticism proper is a state of doubt regarding propositions, their truth value to be precise and hence requires for there to be at least one proposition that can be true/false/undecided/undecidable.

That out of the way, your post, although not explicitly mentioning the point, made a lightbulb go off in my head. A negative statement can't be discussed/analyzed prior to a positive statement that's subject to a similar treatment. Before negation can be performed and a negative statement obtained, there must be a preexisting positive statement that can be negated. Ergo, positive statements precede negative statements and since every statement must be proved, it follows that the burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of one making a positive statement.

Down The Rabbit Hole

↪Pinprick

I think Occam's Razor might make god/s less likely, but it is not enough to shift me from agnosticism, to an active belief that there is no god.
— Down The Rabbit Hole

Are you also agnostic on the existence of fairies? I think you’re using the wrong razor. — Pinprick

I don't have sufficient evidence to claim fairies don't exist. Do you? What is it?

Remember what you said here:

I don’t think the difficulty of providing proof is a factor at all. — Pinprick

TonesInDeepFreeze

positive statements precede negative statements and since every statement must be proved, it follows that the burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of one making a positive statement. — TheMadFool

That's a non sequitur. Yes, to have a negation there is first a statement to be negated. But that doesn't entail anything about burden of proof.

TheMadFool

We prove negations often.

You mentions bears. I'll mention termites. If you call an inspector to your house, and he reports "No termites", then you may say, "What's your basis? What's your proof?" And you shouldn't have to pay him if he just says, "Well, I can't be expected to prove a negative, now can I?" No, he may show you photos of the areas and surfaces or whatever. Or he may give as evidence his attestation that he examined the areas.

So there are instances where the burden of proof does go to person who claims a negation. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I gave this some thought and here's what I found out.

We start off with a proposition (p) & the negation of that proposition (~p) and discover that p v ~p is the ground epistemic state.

From here, our choices are either to prove p or to prove ~p. We can do either of them as there are no obvious reasons to prefer one over the other.

However, the catch is, appears to be, that the default epistemic stance is ~p i.e. in all cases you will be asked to prove p. Hence the rules of thumb, you can't prove a negative & the burden of proof falls on the one making the positive claim. If ~p were not assumed, we would be at liberty to take either arm of the disjunction, p v ~p and the aforementioned maxims wouldn't exist or wouldn't be part of the narrative of critical thinking like it is.

Why, you may wonder?! Is there a good reason? Is it advantageous in other ways like being easier and thus an energy/time-saving strategy? If not all that, is it an intuition and can we make sense of it?

Let's look at the choices we have:
1. Maybe Is or Maybe Is not (p v ~p)
2. Is (p Positive)
3. Is not (~p Negative)

Our journey begins at 1 (above) but proof of Is (p) has precedence over proof of Is not (~p) [can't prove a negative, the burden of proof falls on the one making the positive claim]

As far as I can tell, to the extent that it makes sense to me, the epistemic state 1. p v ~p is worrying because it represents a state of uncertainty perhaps best described as we could be wrong (~p could be the case). Since our fear is getting it wrong (~p) , why not assume that we are (~p)? It's like being uncertain whether there's a burglar in the house; the best course of action is to assume there is one.

TheMadFool

That's a non sequitur. Yes, to have a negation there is first a statement to be negated. But that doesn't entail anything about burden of proof. — TonesInDeepFreeze

1. Negation is an operation i.e. it needs for there to be something which can then be negated e.g. to get to ~p, we need a p first.

2. From 1, p comes first.

3. No flat assertions are permissible i.e. I can't state p unless I have proof.

4. From 2 and 3, since p comes first, at the very least time-wise, proof of p necessarily precedes the proof of its negation ~p.

TonesInDeepFreeze

you can't prove a negative — TheMadFool

Not true.

proof of Is (p) has precedence over proof of Is not (~p) — TheMadFool

So you assert.

It's like being uncertain whether there's a burglar in the house; the best course of action is to assume there is one. — TheMadFool

That's a good example against your argument. We don't assume there is a burglar in the house, since we don't want to be constantly running to the front door to escape or constantly taking whatever defensive measures one would take against a burglar.

TonesInDeepFreeze

I can't state p unless I have proof. — TheMadFool

Wrong. Just to merely state a sentence does not require proving the sentence.

You are correct that in a formation sequence, P precedes ~P. But that does not entail that in a proof sequence P must precede ~P.

TheMadFool

Wrong. Just to merely state a sentence does not require proving the sentence. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Why would you state a sentence p?

To assert p is true.

If so, you need to justify p.

TonesInDeepFreeze

Why would you state a sentence p? — TheMadFool

Different reasons:

To assert it.

To mention that someone else asserted it.

To wonder about it.

To mention it as a topic for discussion.

To mention it as a possible topic for discussion.

To stipulate a proposition to be the subject of a formal debate.

To mention that you will use it as the antecedent for a conditional.

To enter it as the first line of proof of its negation.

Etc.

And if it is to assert it, one can assert it without proving it. People do it all the time. It's not even always reasonable to expect proof:

If I say "There is a traffic jam to avoid on that street" but not supply proof, then one may respond "Thank you for that information, I'll avoid that street" and thus grant the usefulness of my unproved assertion.

/

And I repeat what I just posted, but you skipped:

You are correct that in a formation sequence, P precedes ~P. But that does not entail that in a proof sequence P must precede ~P. — TonesInDeepFreeze

InPitzotl

To assert p is true.

If so, you need to justify p. — TheMadFool

You're oversimplifying this. Ignore the negative part and focus on burden. Compare the following claims:

There's no dangerous mold growing on butter in my fridge.
There are no squirrels running around in my fridge.
There are no horses running around in my fridge.
There are no trilobites crawling around in my fridge.
There are no gremlins running around in my fridge.

All of these are negative claims, but they are clearly not equivalent.

4. The bear = god — TheMadFool

That's a bad analogy. You're trying to prime the pump by using an agreed upon extant entity (bear) in an unlikely place (house), but that's precisely what makes the analogy bad. Bears are demonstrably extant entities that would fit in a house... they are more like squirrels in a fridge.

But the above negative list isn't complete. It's possible we might both disagree on the existence of gremlins, but we might agree on the test for the gremlin... open the fridge and look. If you see a gremlin, there's one in the fridge. If you don't, there isn't one.

I'm not sure god in the fridge fits this criteria... I suspect you believe god is omnipresent, but god being in a fridge looks exactly like what an atheist would expect a fridge without a god in it to look like. If that were the case, and you were expecting the atheist to show you there's no god in the fridge, what exactly is it you expect the atheist to show you? I would argue this is incredibly different than the bear in the house scenario, where not only do we all believe bears exist, but we agree what it would look like to see a bear in a room.

TheMadFool

That's a bad analogy — InPitzotl

Possibly but the Wikipedia page on burden of proof/can't prove a negative uses the same analogy. I'm quite content with that.

You're oversimplifying this — InPitzotl

All of these are negative claims, but they are clearly not equivalent. — InPitzotl

I didn't mention any equivalences between negative statements and how am I oversimplifying the matter?

Different reasons: — TonesInDeepFreeze

Not so I'm afraid. Whenever you declare p, you are in fact asserting p is true and that can't be done without evidence. If I had said ~p then I would need to prove that too but p was here first and so...prove p. Also, asking someone to prove ~p doesn't help your case at all. If that someone is unable to prove ~p then that doesn't mean p is true (argumentum ad ignorantiam).

TonesInDeepFreeze

Whenever you declare p, you are in fact asserting p is true — TheMadFool

I didn't say 'declare P' in the sense of 'declare P to be true'.

I mean 'state P' in the sense of writing it or saying it. Not necessarily to state that it is true. I gave you examples.

A burden of proof of P does not follow from the mere fact that syntactically ~P can't be formed without first forming P.

You just skip recognizing decisive examples and arguments against you.

TheMadFool

Addendum:

Suppose I want to prove proposition P and I use argument T, in the context of T, P is true or so the claim is. Then the following is true:

1. IF P is true with respect to argument T THEN argument T is sound
2. Argument T is unsound
Ergo,
3. P is false with respect argument T [1, 2 modus tollens]

In other words, successfully refuting argument T is tantamount to proving P is false but, note, only with respect to argument T. People don't have to prove ~P, refuting the argument that attempts to prove P is the same as proving ~P but with the caveat that ~P only with respect to the argument that attempts to prove that P.

TheMadFool

I didn't say 'declare P' in the sense of 'declare P to be true'.

I mean 'state P' in the sense of writing it or saying it. Not necessarily to state that it is true. I gave you examples.

A burdenf of proof of P does not follow from the mere fact that syntactically ~P can't be formed without first forming P — TonesInDeepFreeze

Suppose there are two people (two propositions, p, ~p) in a line, and both are required to pay a fee (both need proof), shouldn't the first in the line pay the fee first (prove p first) and only then the second person (prove ~p second)?

TonesInDeepFreeze

Suppose there are two people (two propositions, p, ~p) in a line, and both are required to pay a fee (both need proof), shouldn't the first in the line pay the fee first (prove p first) and only then the second person (prove ~p second)? — TheMadFool

(1) I don't think so, not necessarily. There could be better, more relevant factors used

(2) It is not even an operational analogy for the matter at hand anyway.

(3) Also, do you get to move ahead in the line by proving things? If so, the people claiming provable positives would always get to move ahead. (I guess if you don't give a proof then you're kicked out of the line altogether and don't get inside the fancy sexy nightclub reserved for good provers.)

Proving A Negative/Burden Of Proof

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions