That's just what your gut tells you. :razz: — Coben
To prove that "no swan is black", you would need to examine all currently-living swans, all swans that have lived in the past, and (if you want to be properly thorough) all swans that will ever live in the future. Impossible. You can't prove a negative. — Pattern-chaser
Well, the verb 'is' eliminates the time jumping. But this is all true for the positive. Not sure how we got back here to this again.you would need to examine all currently-living swans, all swans that have lived in the past, and (if you want to — Pattern-chaser
[It] is perfectly possible to prove a negative
— Filipe
No, it isn't. — Pattern-chaser
Each time you focus on the negative, it seems to me you think it has a special problem. — Coben
But again 1) all swans are white is the positive formulation of that and has exactly the same problems. — Coben
No bachelors are married. — Coben
Well, let's find a positive we can't state as a negative to see if it makes sense to make it seem like some positive we can prove. I mean, I thought we agreed that all of science was revisionable and thus not proven. So what are these positives that we can prove?...yes, it does. But you still can't prove a negative. Just like you can't prove some positives. — Pattern-chaser
I called it analytical (as opposed to synthetic). Actually I think there are non-trivial examples of this, though it has to be more complex definitions.The proof here refers to the definition of the term "bachelor", which is "unmarried male". Thus it is disproved by definition, which is a somewhat trivial case, don't you think? :razz: — Pattern-chaser
Well, the verb 'is' eliminates the time jumping. — Coben
I already acknowledged that. And it's exactly the same as all swans are white, which you acknowledged. So what's with the negative. If you want to argue 'some swans are white is provable' then you are going against what you agreed with earlier that all of science is inductive and thus open to revision. Perhaps it will turn out they are not swans or it is not white, but soem other color our eyes register as white or _______________some unknown thing that means that they really weren't white that we can't think of now.OK, so to prove that "no swan is black", you would need to examine all currently-living swans. No matter where they're hiding. Impossible, in practice (which is all that matters). It can't be done, in the real world we live in. — Pattern-chaser
So what are these positives that we can prove? — Coben
Which is a negative claim and thus unprovable. yet, you seemed to intend to prove it.Impossible, in practice (which is all that — Pattern-chaser
Well, if we take "prove" to be more or less absolute in its meaning, then I suspect there's nothing we can prove. And if we dilute its meaning to avoid this problem, what we are left with is 'proof' that is sort of probable or likely, rather than, er, proof. — Pattern-chaser
So what's with the negative? — Coben
you still can't prove a negative. Just like you can't prove some positives. :up: — Pattern-chaser
Which is a negative claim and thus unprovable. yet, you seemed to intend to prove it. — Coben
Can I say there are no swans without fur instead of feathers? — Coben
So, then, like with positive assertions, we can argue in terms of probability. Or we are simply reduced in all things to trading assertions. So, your argument in favor of your assertion that one cannot prove a negative was an attempt to say it was unlikely, for reasons X and Y. That's our position in terms of postive assertions also.No, I stated it without proof, as proof is impossible. Where there can be no proof, we can only trade (what we think are) possibilities, n'est ce pas? :wink: — Pattern-chaser
Sure, agreed, but that wasn't my point. My point was that the difference between analytic and synthetic statements is not so cut and dried.We could begin by telling the absolute truth, as we understand it, and see where we can go from there?
We have never seen or heard of a swan with fur, so we believe there are no furry swans.
There, a belief and its justification, simply presented. No claims to proof. :up: — Pattern-chaser
And the general point is that both positive and negative statements cannot be proved. So to keep saying negative statements cannot be proved implies something specific about negative statements. — Coben
I've asked you for postives that don't show this property. You acknowledged that all of science does not show this property. And scientific conclusions are generally framed in the positive. Give me the bones, man.There is something specific about negatives: it is impractical (as in 'impossible in practice') to prove them. That some positives also show this property does not affect the truth of this, does it? — Pattern-chaser
Well, let's find out together.The specific thing about negatives is that they are framed in such a way that proof becomes impossible because of the way they're framed. This only applies to some positives, I think? — Pattern-chaser
The specific thing about negatives is that they are framed in such a way that proof becomes impossible because of the way they're framed. — Pattern-chaser
You acknowledged that all of science does not show this property. — Coben
Well, let's find out together. — Coben
“The cat is not on the mat” - why is that statement impossible to prove? — AJJ
I remember acknowledging that proof is often difficult to achieve in practice. But the problem, I think, is not positives or negatives but "proof". — Pattern-chaser
"Proof" is easier, as its definition holds it close to its absolute meaning: an unambiguous demonstration of the correctness of something. And this is very difficult to achieve, it seems to me. :chin: — Pattern-chaser
“The cat is not on the mat” - why is that statement impossible to prove?
— AJJ
I don't think it is ... because it is clarified and focussed by the context you provide. "The mat" is a small thing, small enough to be examined in sufficient detail that we can positively confirm the absence of a cat on the mat. A (much) bigger mat would make our lives more difficult, making proof much more difficult. A wholly unconstrained description might render it impossible. — Pattern-chaser
But then there doesn’t appear to be anything about negatives qua negatives that makes them impossible to prove — AJJ
But then there doesn’t appear to be anything about negatives qua negatives that makes them impossible to prove
— AJJ
Well, this would seem to apply to negatives with unconstrained contexts. Specifically, it applies to statements for which empirical verification (or falsification) is impossible in practice (even if it might be verifiable in principle). — Pattern-chaser
You appeared to be saying this problem is specific to negatives. — AJJ
I started off thinking it was, but it isn't. Nevertheless the old saying - you can't prove a negative - still stands. It's just that other things also can't be proven, for similar reasons. :up: — Pattern-chaser
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.