Orn. said, "would you not agree that it is impossible to prove a negative?"
No, I would not agree. There is a simple and hardy law of logic that backs me up on this. It is called the law of non contradiction. "You Can Prove a Negative by Steven D. Hales A PRINCIPLE OF FOLK LOGIC is that you can’t prove a negative. Skeptics and scientists routinely concede the point in debates about the possible existence of everything from Big Foot and Loch Ness to aliens and even God. In a recent television interview on Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report, for example, Skeptic publisher Michael Shermer admitted as much when Stephen Colbert pressed him on the point when discussing Weapons of Mass Destruction, the comedian adding that once it is admitted that scientists cannot prove the nonexistence of a thing, then belief in anything is possible. Even Richard Dawkins writes in The God Delusion that “you cannot prove God’s non-existence is accepted and trivial, if only in the sense that we can never absolutely prove the non-existence of anything.” There is one big problem with this. Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right, zero. Yes, Virginia, you can prove a negative, and it’s easy, too. For one thing, a real, actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction. This law states that that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore, you can prove this law. It can be formally derived from the empty set using provably valid rules of inference. (I’ll spare you the boring details). One of the laws of logic is a provable negative. Wait … this means we’ve just proven that it is not the case that one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a negative. So we’ve proven yet another negative! In fact, “you can’t prove a negative” is a negative — so if you could prove it true, it wouldn’t be true! Uh- oh. Not only that, but any claim can be expressed as a negative, thanks to the rule of double negation. This rule states that any proposition P is logically equivalent to not-not-P. So pick anything you think you can prove. Think you can prove your own existence? At least to your own satisfaction? Then, using the exact same reasoning, plus the little step of double negation, you can prove that you are not nonexistent. Congratulations, you’ve just proven a negative. The beautiful part is that you can do this trick with absolutely any proposition whatsoever. Prove P is true and you can prove that P is not false. You can easily construct a valid deductive argument with all true premises that yields the conclusion that there are no unicorns. Here’s one, using the valid inference procedure of modus tollens (Latin for “mode that affirms by denying”): 1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence in the fossil record. 2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record. 3. Therefore, unicorns never existed. Someone might object that that was a bit too fast — after all, I didn’t prove that the two premises were true. I just asserted that they were true. Well, that’s right. However, it would be a grievous mistake to insist that someone prove all the premises of any argument they might give. Here’s why. The only way to prove, say, that there is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record, is by giving an argument to that conclusion. Of course one would then have to prove the premises of that argument by giving further arguments, and then prove the premises of those further arguments, ad infinitum. Which premises we should take on credit and which need payment up front is a matter of long and involved debate among epistemologists. But one thing is certain: if proving things requires that an infinite number of premises get proved first, we’re not going to prove much of anything at all, positive or negative. Maybe people mean that no inductive argument will conclusively, indubitably prove a negative proposition beyond all shadow of a doubt. For example, suppose someone argues that we’ve scoured the world for Bigfoot, found no credible evidence of Bigfoot’s existence, and therefore there is no Bigfoot. This is a classic inductive argument. A Sasquatch defender can always rejoin that Bigfoot is reclusive, and might just be hiding in that next stand of trees. You can’t prove he’s not! (until the search of that tree stand comes up empty too). The problem here isn’t that inductive arguments won’t give us certainty about negative claims (like the nonexistence of Bigfoot), but that inductive arguments won’t give us certainty about anything at all, positive or negative. All observed swans are white, therefore all swans are white looked like a pretty good inductive argument until black swans were discovered in Australia. The very nature of an inductive argument is to make a conclusion probable, but not certain, given the truth of the premises. That is just what an inductive argument is. We’d better not dismiss induction because we’re not getting certainty out of it, though. Why do you think that the sun will rise tomorrow? Not because of observation (you can’t observe the future!), but because that’s what it has always done in the past. Why do you think that if you turn on the kitchen tap that water will come out instead of chocolate? Why do you think you’ll find your house where you last left it? Again, because that’s the way things have always been in the past. In other words, we use inferences — induction — from past experiences in every aspect of our lives. As Bertrand Russell once pointed out, the chicken who expects to be fed when he sees the farmer approaching, since that is what had always happened in the past, is in for a big surprise when instead of receiving dinner, he becomes dinner. But if the chicken had rejected inductive reasoning altogether, then every appearance of the farmer would be a surprise. So why is it that people insist that you can’t prove a negative? I think it is the result of two things: (1) Disappointment that induction is not bulletproof, airtight, and infallible, and (2) A desperate desire to keep believing whatever one believes, even if all the evidence is against it. That’s why people keep believing in alien abductions, even when flying saucers always turn out to be weather balloons, stealth jets, comets, or too much alcohol. You can’t prove a negative! You can’t prove that there are no alien abductions! Meaning: your argument against aliens is inductive, therefore not incontrovertible. Since I want to believe in aliens, I’m going to dismiss the argument no matter how overwhelming the evidence against aliens, and no matter how vanishingly small the chance of extraterrestrial abduction. If we’re going to dismiss inductive arguments because they produce conclusions that are probable but not definite, then we are in deep manure. Despite its fallibility, induction is vital in every aspect of our lives, from the mundane to the most sophisticated science. Without induction we know basically nothing about the world apart from our own immediate perceptions. So we’d better keep induction, warts and all, and use it to form negative beliefs as well as positive ones. You can prove a negative — at least as much as you can prove anything at all." Also, the onus is on the person making the claim that the soul exist. It is not my job, nor for Stenger, to disprove a claim made by a person who put forward that the soul exist. stemcell On Sep 26, 10:02 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > “Hi y'all - I'd just like to nit pick your Victor Stenger comment. I > haven't found the time to read his book yet, but I will. Nevertheless, > if, as you point out, he uses physics to back up his assertion that > there is no god, I have no problem with that.” – Clog > > I wouldn’t expect you to have a problem with that. However, the > problem with accepting the use of physics alone in looking for the > divine is that, so far, I’ve not seen it written nor agreed upon, nor > even found evidence that physics by itself can locate or find let > alone explain the divine. It is clear that, so far, physics has not > been able to do this and, so far, I haven’t found a specific > experiment using physics that claimed that it’s goal was to find god. > All one finds is a bunch of assumptions, beliefs and logic of > sophism. > > Here is an example from Stenger > himself:http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Summary.htm > > Please note that this is all dialectics and rhetoric and not science. > I await the experiment that gives clear evidence of the divine. And, > IF one accepts things like the above list from Stenger, would you not > agree that it is impossible to prove a negative? Here I’m talking > about rhetoric and ‘logic’ of some sort or another and not science. > Again, if you have a specific experiment that proves without a doubt > that there is no divinity, I for one would find it quite interesting. > > “On the other hand you suggest that we should be using introspection > to search for a god.” – Clog > > No, not for ‘a god’. For the absolute at the very least, of course. > This part is not that hard to do for many people. > > “I know that Stem would not support that. Neither do I, but perhaps we > are not looking for a god or a soul but a subconscious - now that's > right up my street, and I'll follow your lead.” – Clog > > Well, since this is an open and acceptable area for you and Stem to > explore, what exactly is meant by subconscious for you? At least we > can continue to explore together this way. > > On Sep 26, 5:56 pm, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hi y'all - I'd just like to nit pick your Victor Stenger comment. I > > haven't found the time to read his book yet, but I will. Nevertheless, > > if, as you point out, he uses physics to back up his assertion that > > there is no god, I have no problem with that. On the other hand you > > suggest that we should be using introspection to search for a god. I > > know that Stem would not support that. Neither do I, but perhaps we > > are not looking for a god or a soul but a subconscious - now that's > > right up my street, and I'll follow your lead. > > > On Sep 26, 6:28 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Stem, thanks for the civil and well presented post. > > > > No, I am not familiar with the two people you mention. I did read the > > > link on Flanagan and find that he “has proposed that there is a > > > "natural method" to go about understanding consciousness that involves > > > creating a science of mind. Three key elements of this developing > > > science are: 1) paying attention to subjective reports on conscious > > > experiences, 2) incorporating the results from psychology and > > > cognitive science, and 3) including the results from neuroscience that > > > will reveal how neuronal systems produce consciousness.” > > > > This set of three is nothing new and is almost directly lifted from > > > what William Jameshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James > > > proposed back in the late 1800s. I agree that introspection (almost > > > the same as subjective reports) must be one aspect of the triune of > > > study of Mind. By the way, I learned about this approach of three > > > methods from Alan Wallace whom I believe I’ve linked to and/or quoted > > > here before. He was the first ordained Western Monk in Tibetan > > > Buddhism and studied In Dharamsala for about 16 years or so. He has > > > studied and received a degree in physics in the US and knows a lot > > > about psychology overall. > > > > So, in this sense, we are in agreement that our apparently individual > > > experience(s) must be included in the study of Mind. > > > > Yes, HHDL has said and continues to say that he will include > > > scientific information in his ontology and epistemology. > > > > When it comes to Victor Stenger, considering his personal area of > > > study: > > > B.S., Electrical Engineering, Newark College of Engineering (now New > > > Jersey Institute of Technology), 1956. > > > M.S., Physics, UCLA, 1958. > > > Ph. D., Physics, UCLA, 1963. Thesis: Low Energy K+d Scattering and the > > > I = 0 KN Interaction (Harold K. Ticho, advisor) > > > > I might consider him knowledgeable about Physics. > > > > Yet, when it comes to an overview of his book “God: The Failed > > > Hypothesis is a 2007 by scientist Victor J. Stenger who argues that > > > there is no evidence for the existence of a deity and that a God's > > > existence is improbable. > > > David Ludden of Skeptic magazine wrote that "Stenger lays out the > > > evidence from cosmology, particle physics and quantum mechanics > > > showing that the universe appears exactly as it should if there is no > > > creator."”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God:_The_Failed_Hypothesis > > > I find that he appears to be ignoring the very crucial third > > > cornerstone for study of Mind that we have already agreed upon, > > > introspection. Since we have agreed upon this part of the ‘big 3’, > > > perhaps we should ignore Victor and his proof by ‘improbability’? > > > > Looking a little further into his method of > > > study,http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21334644-5003900,0... > > > he clearly is a reactionary Catholic. While I can empathize with such > > > a situation, I do not find it authoritative when it comes to ontology. > > > > Now, continuing with HHDL, clearly he has been misunderstood by > > > Stenger when he says “..the Dali Lama still seems to believe in a > > > duality of mind and body not supported by science.”, although at least > > > Stenger uses the qualifier “seems to”. > > > > First, having studied with some of HHDL’s teachers and having read > > > many HHDL’s writings and some of the authors he references, I can say > > > categorically that he does not find duality within the psyche nor what > > > appears to be body/mind. Again, as a synthetic separation, there is > > > the relative Mind (subjective) and there is the absolute Mind > > > (objective), yet, he and others know that in fact these ‘two’ are > > > consubstantial and are one. > > > > Even though Stenger is a self proclaimed practicing Buddhist, the > > > cover of his book “God:The Fai…” includes this: “Stenger argues that > > > science has advanced sufficiently to make a definitive statement on > > > the existence – or nonexistence – of the traditional Judeo-Christian- > > > Islamic-God.” > > > > Having scanned some of his words, I can see how he would appeal to the > > > skeptic. He says all of the right things and brings a diverse > > > background to the table for the appeal to authority. > > > > Now when it comes to Damasio, I have nothing against Portuguese > > > behavioral neurologists. His BCI institute aiming to "gather new > > > knowledge about the human emotions, decision-making, memory, and > > > communication, from a neurological perspective, and to apply this > > > knowledge to the solution of problems in the biomedical and > > > sociocultural arenas.", is fine. I also might agree with his critique > > > of Descartes and maybe even Spinoza. > > > All of this being a ‘given’, I’m not sure how his research addresses > > > anything other than the emotions and philosophy etc. which his > > > publications address. > > > > So, thanks for sharing what apparently interests you stem! And, I have > > > no contradiction with the beliefs of these people at all. It is all > > > interesting fodder for thought, although, that alone is not enough to > > > produce a definitive view. > > > > On Sep 26, 2:26 pm, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Orn, > > > > Are you fimiliar with Owen Flanagan or Antonio Damasio? I will post a > > > > link below for further information on them. I think you might want to > > > > check Flanagan out and read what he has to say about consciousness and > > > > the soul, especially in his book "The Problem of the Soul". The > > > > majority of Philosophers of Mind and Neroscientist agree that the > > > > Descartes mind/brain split is no longer a workable hypothesis. I am > > > > no expert on this subject but I trust the experts on this subject...ya > > > > know. :-) > > > > > Another tidbit I found interesting, and got me thinking, was your > > > > statements about Tibetan Buddhism. The Dali Lama once said that he > > > > would attempt to change his teaching if said teaching was contradicted > > > > by science. Well, in "God the Failed Hypothesis" by Victor Stenger he > > > > states, "In stark contrast to almost all other religious leaders, the > > > > Dali Lama has tried to keep Tibetan Buddhism in tune with the modern > > > > world. He has often made it clear that whenever a Buddhist teaching > > > > disagreed with science, then he would attempt to change the teaching. > > > > However, as I have already noted, the Dali Lama still seems to believe > > > > in a duality of mind and body not supported by science."pg. 250. > > > > > I do not now know if he has changed his "mind" :-) on this since this > > > > book came out in 2007. > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Flanagan > > > > >http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/thomas_clark/flanagan.html > > > > > Antonia Damasio -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant%C3%B3nio_Dam%C3%A1sio > > > > > As for the "science of development" in reference to the "primative > > > > streak" in an earlier post, you are correct. I meant of the science > > > > of embryo (you said "child" though) development. > > > > > I > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
