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
Read the link provided in "negative proof". Your post is completely strawman / non sequitur — 180 Proof
Proof you either haven't read my first post thoroughly or can't ubderstand what you've read. — 180 Proof
Fool, and I ain't dumb enough to dumb it down any further. — 180 Proof
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
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 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
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
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 think the difficulty of providing proof is a factor at all. — Pinprick
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
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
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
you can't prove a negative — TheMadFool
proof of Is (p) has precedence over proof of Is not (~p) — TheMadFool
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
I can't state p unless I have proof. — TheMadFool
Wrong. Just to merely state a sentence does not require proving the sentence. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Why would you state a sentence p? — TheMadFool
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
You're oversimplifying this. Ignore the negative part and focus on burden. Compare the following claims:To assert p is true.
If so, you need to justify p. — 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.4. The bear = god — TheMadFool
That's a bad analogy — InPitzotl
You're oversimplifying this — InPitzotl
All of these are negative claims, but they are clearly not equivalent. — InPitzotl
Different reasons: — 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 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)? — TheMadFool
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.