Q1. Does p come first or does ~p come first?
A1. p of course.

Q2. Is proof required for a proposition?
A2. Yes, all propositions require proof.

Q3. So p requires proof and ~p requires proof?
A3. Yes.

Q4. Which should be proved first p or ~p?
A4. That which comes first of course.

Q5. Why?
A5. p was asserted first.

Q6. So what if p was asserted first?
A6. No assertion can be made without proof.

Q7. And?
A7. p was asserted before ~p. Necessarily that proof of p must be produced before proof of ~p

I didn't mention any equivalences between negative statements — TheMadFool

You explicitly did exactly that:

4. The bear = god — TheMadFool

...that's the same quote in the post you replied to.

You explicitly did exactly that: — InPitzotl

My bad. Yes, I did but since you raised an objection, it kinda,threw me off. What's the problem with "negative statements" being equivalent? That you assert
this self-contradictory statement

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

played a big role in my confusion.

Note you say "all of these are negative claims." That's an equivalence if ever there was one!

Note you say "all of these are negative claims." That's an equivalence if ever there was one! — TheMadFool

It is indeed! They are equivalent in that they are all negative claims. But I don't think they have equivalent levels of burden. I don't see the self-contradiction. 4 and 7 are equivalent modulo 3, but you'd better believe I'd prefer 7 red velvet cup cakes to 4!

It is indeed! They are equivalent in that they are all negative claims. But I don't think they have equivalent levels of burden. — InPitzotl

On what basis do you claim that is?

On what basis do you claim that is? — TheMadFool

I don't understand the question (quite frankly, I have problems even parsing it). Are you asking why I think claims of the non-existence of something are negative claims, or are you asking why I think not all negative claims have equivalent burdens?

why I think not all negative claims have equivalent burdens? — InPitzotl

Why?

Why? — TheMadFool

I don't need to check the fridge... there isn't enough room in my fridge for a horse to run in it.

I don't need to check the fridge... there isn't enough room in my fridge for a horse to run in it. — InPitzotl

So, you mean to say the positive statement, "a horse is in the fridge" is harder to prove than the negative statement, "a horse is not in the fridge"? The latter seems to follow in an immediate sense from the fact that a horse can't fit in a fridge. Thumbelina (2001 - 2018)

So, you mean to say the positive statement, "a horse is in the fridge" is harder to prove than the negative statement, "a horse is not in the fridge"? — TheMadFool

No; I mean that some negative claims, like "there is no horse running in my fridge", can be reasonably held with less burden than other negative claims, like "there is no mold growing on butter in my fridge".

The latter seems to follow in an immediate sense from the fact that a horse can't fit in a fridge. Thumbelina (2001 - 2018) — TheMadFool

The negative claim is about a horse running, not fitting, in my fridge. But we can bypass this. It is hypothetically possible that there is a horse none of us know about, which is so small, that it can indeed actually run in my fridge. But for such a horse to actually be running in my fridge, hypothetical isn't good enough... it must be actual. That's still possible. But lest you forget, I'm not talking about what's possible or what burden any particular claim has... I'm talking about the equivalence of burden between negative claims. It would be quite surprising, for good reason, to find a horse running in my fridge. It would not be nearly as surprising to find molded butter.

A negative statement can't be discussed/analyzed prior to a positive statement that's subject to a similar treatment. — TheMadFool

I think this is limited to existential statements, but yeah that’s another way to look at it.

I tend to think that you can’t prove any sort of positive or negative claims but you can provide some evidence for just about any sort of claim. For example, suppose that God has been popping out on the sky in front of you every day for your entire life. I don’t think that even this would prove that God exist. You can still make an argument that an evil demon is tricking you into believing in God but making an image of God appear. Nonetheless, it would be pretty strong evidence that God exists. I think that whether or not the lack of our ability to discover God constitutes evidence against the existence of God is dependent on whether or not one thinks that we should expect to see God if God really existed.

There are certain things that we usually believe in even if we can’t see them because we have a compelling explanation for why we wouldn’t be able to see them. For example, most scientifically educated people believed in the existence of black holes even before we actually managed to see or detect them. It seems that the reason why most educated people rightfully believed in black holes before they could see them is because there was a compelling explanation why we wouldn’t be able to see those things right away. Namely, that you would need to have special technology to detect black holes.

By contrast, I tend to think that if there really was a God that loved us and wanted to have a relationship with us that we should be able to easily see him because there doesn’t seem to be a compelling explanation for why someone that loves us wouldn’t just immediately reveal themselves to us. Personally, I think it’s more likely than not that such a loving entity wouldn’t make themselves hidden. Most Christians probably disagree. Therefore, I tend to think that this is pretty good evidence against the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. So, I think this sort of dispute is more about whether or not we should expect to see something like a God if such entities existed.

I don't have sufficient evidence to claim fairies don't exist. Do you? What is it? — Down The Rabbit Hole

It isn’t needed. Do you have any evidence that they do exist? If not, then the reasonable thing to do is not believe they exist.

Remember what you said here: — Down The Rabbit Hole

I just meant it wasn’t a factor for determining burden of proof, but yes it is difficult (I would actually claim it’s impossible) to prove something doesn’t exist. There are exceptions, of course when the scope is narrow (I.e. there is no money in my pocket at this time).

You missed the point. It makes no difference whether you're talking about a horse fitting/running/anything at all. To prove that a horse is fitting/running/anything at all, all that's required for me to do is to open the fridge. Someone denying this to be possible i.e. there is no horse fits/is running/anything at all, this someone has to show that no such horse exists which would necessitate combing the entire planet, from pole to pole, east to west, to find out if such a horse doesn't exist.

the Wikipedia page on burden of proof/can't prove a negative — TheMadFool

What page is that? The page I found says we can prove a negative.

(1)

p was asserted first. — TheMadFool

We don't know that P was asserted before ~P.

I assert the following statement:

It is not the case that there exists a rainbow colored kangaroo doing yoga in the White House Oval Office now.

That statement is ~P where P is:

There exists a rainbow colored kangaroo doing yoga in the White House Oval Office now..

And P was not asserted before ~P.

The best you could correctly say is that, with the language formation rules, we cannot formulate ~P without first formulating P. But it's a naked non sequitur to claim that the syntactical formation rules entail rules for discourse. Not not only is it not the case that P must be asserted first, but it is also not the case that the fact ~P cannot be syntactically formed without first forming P entails that P must be proven first.

(2) Certain negations have positive equivalents.

"It is not the case that the death penalty should be continued."

is equivalent to

"The death penalty should be abolished."

And

"The death penalty should be continued."

is equivalent to

"It is not the case that the death penalty should be abolished"

So, in such an example, there wouldn't even be a way using by your rule to claim which should be proven first.

(3) You skipped my counterexample to your claim that assertion requires 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. — TonesInDeepFreeze

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. — TheMadFool

~P cannot be understood without first understanding P. But that does not entail that P must first be proved. Your "Ergo" is a non sequitur.

We don't know that P was asserted before ~P. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Negation is an operation. It needs a proposition i.e. before I negate p and get ~p, the proposition p has to be there. Right? Just think of it, "not cat" makes no sense if "cat" doesn't exist as an idea. I rest my case.

The links I provided were meant as references, not infallible sources.

Negation is an operation. It needs a proposition i.e. before I negate p and get ~p, the proposition p has to be there. Right? Just think of it, "not cat" makes no sense if "cat" doesn't exist as an idea. I rest my case. — TheMadFool

I myself have said over and over and over that you can't form ~P without first forming P.

But, and I've said this over and over and over, that does not entail that you must first prove P.

Your "I rest my case" is empty.

And you skipped my other points, yet again.

~P cannot be understood without first understanding P. But that does not entail that P must first be proved. Your "Ergo" is a non sequitur. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Suppose we're having a debate. The topic is whether god exists or not. The first proposition that kicks off the debate is without doubt the proposition, "god exists" for the reason that the negation of a proposition comes only after the proposition has been stated in positive form. In other words, the debate begins with "god exists". We know that every proposition must be supported/demonstrated with an argument. Ergo, necessarily that "god exists" must be proven before "god doesn't exist."

I haven't debated all that much in life but last I checked, the team for the motion makes the first move, followed by the team against the motion. This is a big clue in and of itself.

I myself have said over and over and over that you can't form ~P without first forming P.

But, and I've said this over and over and over, that does not entail that you must first prove P.

Your "I rest my case" is empty. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Sorry if you feel differently. Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion but read the post preceding this one. It should be crystal clear why p needs to be proved before ~p.

I rest my case.

It's crystal clear that your method is to just keep insisting you're right without addressing the arguments.

the debate begins with "god exists" — TheMadFool

It might seem awkward for the subject of that debate to be couched in the negative, but it is not logically necessary that it be couched in the positive. It would not defy logic to start with the proposition "It is not the case that there is an omniscient, omnipotent, all-good being".

The team that starts is called the 'Affirmative' but I don't know that it is the case that the proposition itself in an academic debate must be couched in the positive.

And the conventions for academic debates don't govern controversy and discourse universally.

Also, I gave you an example where the negative has a positive equivalent and vice versa. You ignored that.

You missed the point. — TheMadFool

No, I didn't miss your point. I dismissed it. This was quite explicit in the last post... you explicitly asked if I meant that the positive claim was harder to prove than the negative claim. And I explicitly said no, that I meant that some negative claims can be reasonably held with less burden than other negative claims.

To prove that a horse is fitting/running/anything at all, all that's required for me to do is to open the fridge. — TheMadFool

But TMF, it's not that I deny how easy this is to prove, it's that I deny its relevance to burden of proof. If Joe says there's no horse running in his fridge, I would accept that claim without checking. If Frank says there's no molded butter in his fridge, I would not accept that claim without checking. Therefore I place different burdens on different negative claims. How easy it is to check the claim is irrelevant; in fact, it's easier to show there's no horse running in a fridge than it is to show there's no molded butter.

Someone denying this to be possible — TheMadFool

And who would that be?

That's still possible. — InPitzotl

I don't base my burden of proof here on what's possible; rather, it's based on what's reasonable:

It is hypothetically possible that there is a horse none of us know about, which is so small, that it can indeed actually run in my fridge. But for such a horse to actually be running in my fridge, hypothetical isn't good enough... it must be actual. — InPitzotl

Put it this way. Allow me to describe a game. We take 1,000,000 fridges (all nice and plugged in and operational, like mine is). Every time we find a fridge with molded butter in it, you pay me 20 bucks, but only on one condition. If we ever find a single of these 1,000,000 fridges with a horse running in it, you pay me nothing; instead, I pay you 5,000 bucks. I feel safe playing this game.

It's crystal clear that your method is to just keep insisting you're right without addressing the arguments. — TonesInDeepFreeze

You have raised objections to my argument re why positive claims have priority over negative claims with regard to which must be first tackled in the sense proved. I responded adequately in my humble opinion to those objections. Just so you know, you actually haven't argued your stand on the issue. Thanks for the engaging discussion, I enjoyed it a lot. I hope it was the same for you. :wink: :smile:

I responded adequately — TheMadFool

(1)

We don't know that P was asserted before ~P.

I assert the following statement:

It is not the case that there exists a rainbow colored kangaroo doing yoga in the White House Oval Office now.

That statement is ~P where P is:

There exists a rainbow colored kangaroo doing yoga in the White House Oval Office now..

And P was not asserted before ~P.

The best you could correctly say is that, with the language formation rules, we cannot formulate ~P without first formulating P. But it's a naked non sequitur to claim that the syntactical formation rules entail rules for discourse. Not not only is it not the case that P must be asserted first, but it is also not the case that the fact ~P cannot be syntactically formed without first forming P entails that P must be proven first. — TonesInDeepFreeze

You evaded that that is a counterexample to your claim that P must be asserted before ~P is asserted. Instead you just intoned again your non sequitur that syntactical formation entails order of proof.

(2)

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. — TonesInDeepFreeze

You evaded that the items in the list (except the first one) are examples answering your challenge that to state a proposition is to assert it.

You skipped completely the example of an assertion that has value without having been proven.

(3)

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. — TonesInDeepFreeze

You skipped that entirely.

(4)

Certain negations have positive equivalents.

"It is not the case that the death penalty should be continued."

is equivalent to

"The death penalty should be abolished."

And

"The death penalty should be continued."

is equivalent to

"It is not the case that the death penalty should be abolished"

So, in such an example, there wouldn't even be a way using by your rule to claim which should be proven first. — TonesInDeepFreeze

You skipped that completely.

you actually haven't argued your stand on the issue — TheMadFool

My point has been that your arguments are specious. That doesn't not require "taking a stand" on anything other than what I have said.

you explicitly asked if I meant that the positive claim was harder to prove than the negative claim. And I explicitly said no, that I meant that some negative claims can be reasonably held with less burden than other negative claims. — InPitzotl

I'm approaching the issue with an open mind without any preconceptions or prejudices. My aim was to discover for myself why the burden of proof has to be borne by those making a positive claim and not the one making a negative claim.

By way of a possible reason, I found out that, insofar as existential claims are the issue, proving the positive is much, much easier than proving the negative. This qualifies difficulty level as a good reason why those making positive existential claim should bear the burden of proof. I'm not claiming that this is the reason but it definitely is a reason. If given a choice between easy and hard, common sense would have you choose the easy (way out).

My point has been to show that your arguments are specious. That doesn't not require "taking a stand" on anything other than what I have said. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Fine, have it your way then. G'day.

insofar as existential claims are the issue, proving the positive is much, much easier than proving the negative. — TheMadFool

We can only prove what is true. So it is always easier to prove what is true, since there is no proof of a falsehood. That applies whether it's ExP or ~ExP.

Then let's compare a true positive with a true negative.

ExP

and

~ExQ

it is not true that in all cases, ExP is easier to prove than ~ExQ. It would depend on P and Q.