Is it true?

[McHanhan]

I am really interested in philosophy and have been reading about it for a while now. Recently the question cropped about proving universal negatives and if it can be done?. So I was wondering, is it true that you can't prove a negative?. How much truth does this claim carry?
Can one prove a universal negative?

Along with that what is considered proof?. Is inductive reasoning consider sufficient proof? why?.

Is proof by contradiction considered sufficient proof?. why?

If you have another method please provide it.

Discuss and provide examples.

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

This is a false synecdoche. "Proving something doesn't exist" is only part of the concept of "proving a negative."

Sure, you can't prove Santa Clause doesn't exist because "Santa" has never been clearly defined. For all we know he could be an alien being using alien technology that we've never encountered.

But you can prove that no fraction exists that's equal to the square root of two.

 

[ma55ter_fett]

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking but I will attempt to sound like I do

The earth is not the center of the universe.

1 + 1 = 2 and no matter what 1 and 1 will always make 2.

Is that what you ment?

 

[AquaAscension]

I'm not sure if synecdoche is the right word for this case... synecdoche is like using part of a thing to represent the whole thing and is usually considered a function of speech... like using the term "wheels" to mean an entire care would be a synecdoche. Anyhow, sorry to use the internet for such petty things.

OT: I don't think that you can really "prove" something with a contradiction. You simply present a counter example. True, this would prove a theory "incorrect" or rather "incomplete" I suppose.

Damn, what the heck is a universal negative anyway? I don't want to say something stupid on the internet based on ignorance. *fail*

 

[NeutralDrow]

Of course you can prove a universal negative.

"Thus far, there is no Souplex post in this thread."

Evidence bears this out.

 

[Computer-Noob]

This is a false synecdoche. "Proving something doesn't exist" is only part of the concept of "proving a negative."

Sure, you can't prove Santa Clause doesn't exist because "Santa" has never been clearly defined. For all we know he could be an alien being using alien technology that we've never encountered.

But you can prove that no fraction exists that's equal to the square root of two.

You've got to wonder why an alien being would bother disguising himself as a big fat man in red and white clothes, flying a sleigh pulled by magical reindeer delivering toys to good little kids and coal to all the bad ones.

Whatever kind of cosmic cocaine was used to induce such concepts needs to be delivered to me now.

 

[WayOutThere]

While we most certainly can prove the logically imposible do not exist we can never prove anything else does not exist. The reason being, by my interpretation, that while we have no reason to believe that anything exists beyond the world around us there is no epistemological way to know such a reality does not exist. Therefore, there is no way to know that something does not exist in that reality.

The only absolutes that exist in the universe exist within mathematics.

It would be more acurate to say that the only absoutes that exits are in deductive reasoning as mathematics is largely if not entirely a form of deductive reason but not all deductive reasoning is mathmatics.

 

[McHanhan]

This is a false synecdoche. "Proving something doesn't exist" is only part of the concept of "proving a negative."

Sure, you can't prove Santa Clause doesn't exist because "Santa" has never been clearly defined. For all we know he could be an alien being using alien technology that we've never encountered.

But you can prove that no fraction exists that's equal to the square root of two.

Am I proving a universal negative by proving that 'No Escapist member has green colored nickname?'

The only absolutes that exist in the universe exist within mathematics.

What if the basis of mathematics came into question, what if the core of maths was wrong?. What if mathematics can be altered to not included absolutes?. Does that mean the universe is has no absolutes?.

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking but I will attempt to sound like I do

The earth is not the center of the universe.

1 + 1 = 2 and no matter what 1 and 1 will always make 2.

Is that what you ment?

You haven't grasped the question. I am talking about proving a negative. Not proving a postive which is your 1 + 1 = 2 statement.

Draw a circle on the ground. Say aloud, "A cat is not inside this circle."
Have you just proven a negative?.

 

[ma55ter_fett]

This is a false synecdoche. "Proving something doesn't exist" is only part of the concept of "proving a negative."

Sure, you can't prove Santa Clause doesn't exist because "Santa" has never been clearly defined. For all we know he could be an alien being using alien technology that we've never encountered.

But you can prove that no fraction exists that's equal to the square root of two.

Am I proving a universal negative by proving that 'No Escapist member has green colored nickname?'

The only absolutes that exist in the universe exist within mathematics.

What if the basis of mathematics came into question, what if the core of maths was wrong?. What if mathematics can be altered to not included absolutes?. Does that mean the universe is has no absolutes?.

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking but I will attempt to sound like I do

The earth is not the center of the universe.

1 + 1 = 2 and no matter what 1 and 1 will always make 2.

Is that what you ment?

You haven't grasped the question. I am talking about proving a negative. Not proving a postive which is your 1 + 1 = 2 statement.

Draw a circle on the ground. Say aloud, "A cat is not inside this circle."
Have you just proven a negative?.

It would be the truth, unless you drew a circle around a cat or if one were to step into the circle in which case it would be false.

you could prove that there is no cat in the circle by one of any dozen scientific or mathematical means, or you could just get some witnesses to verify that there is indeed no cat in the circle.

 

[Dark Knifer]

So what your saying you can't prove something that we are not sure exist? I don't think I can quite grasp this question. Give me a bit and I might think of something...

 

[Grand_Marquis]

A universal negative, if I'm remembering correctly, cannot be constrained by time. So, using caveats like "Thus far" or "up to this point" in a negative declaration omits it from being a universal negative.

Conveniently, this makes it immune to paradox, since one can only say "Thus far, it's impossible to prove a universal negative" (because it might be possible in the future - some universal negatives could be proven if one knew the complete rules and constraints governing the universe). So the concept works within itself. But that's beside the point, of course...although that the same time it kind of answers the question.



[edit - thread moves fast, quoting what I'm responding to below]

Draw a circle on the ground. Say aloud, "A cat is not inside this circle."
Have you just proven a negative?.

To directly answer to your example - and it's nickpicky but valid - I would note that your declaration would also include ghost cats, invisible cats, and cats that exist at a scale too small to observe (which, unlike ghost cats and invisible cats, is actually a likely reality IF the universe is fractal). None of those negatives can be proven completely, and even though you never included them explicitly, the statement is broad enough that you're forced to include them anyway. In fact, in order to account for every possible technicality, you'd eventually have to make exceptions for everything in the universe. Hence why you can't really prove a universal negative.

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

I'm not sure if synecdoche is the right word for this case... synecdoche is like using part of a thing to represent the whole thing and is usually considered a function of speech... like using the term "wheels" to mean an entire care would be a synecdoche. Anyhow, sorry to use the internet for such petty things.

OT: I don't think that you can really "prove" something with a contradiction. You simply present a counter example. True, this would prove a theory "incorrect" or rather "incomplete" I suppose.

Damn, what the heck is a universal negative anyway? I don't want to say something stupid on the internet based on ignorance. *fail*

Thank you for the text book definition of Synecdoche, however in a philosophical quandary it is more akin to "simultaneous understanding". Something which is required in order to prove or disprove a theory or concept in question.

This is a false synecdoche. "Proving something doesn't exist" is only part of the concept of "proving a negative."

Sure, you can't prove Santa Clause doesn't exist because "Santa" has never been clearly defined. For all we know he could be an alien being using alien technology that we've never encountered.

But you can prove that no fraction exists that's equal to the square root of two.

You've got to wonder why an alien being would bother disguising himself as a big fat man in red and white clothes, flying a sleigh pulled by magical reindeer delivering toys to good little kids and coal to all the bad ones.

Whatever kind of cosmic cocaine was used to induce such concepts needs to be delivered to me now.

Would you believe that he is a convict from Volarin IX serving out a 6000 year sentence for urinating in a neighbor's pool, by spending 364 days in isolation on a remote frozen region on a far away planet, while carrying out his 24 hour sentence of community service in a single day by helping to distribute gifts to the global population, all the while overcoming his fear of heights?. It's like a FOX Sci-fi comedy script, no?.

This is a false synecdoche. "Proving something doesn't exist" is only part of the concept of "proving a negative."

Sure, you can't prove Santa Clause doesn't exist because "Santa" has never been clearly defined. For all we know he could be an alien being using alien technology that we've never encountered.

But you can prove that no fraction exists that's equal to the square root of two.

Am I proving a universal negative by proving that 'No Escapist member has green colored nickname?'

You'd have to prove that they're all the same color on everyone's screens and to everyone's eyes, even the colorblind. Then you'd have to define what "green" is...

 

[Sprogus]

The whole idea behind you can't prove a negative is used in cases such as people claiming that something exists even though there is evidence to suggest it exists. Such as the existance of God or that there is a tea pot orbiting the sun. No one thus far can prove that either of these things exist. But the burden of proof falls to those claiming that the thing exists. Because it is impossible to prove a negative when there is no evidence. I hope that makes sense.

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

It would be the truth, unless you drew a circle around a cat or if one were to step into the circle in which case it would be false.

you could prove that there is no cat in the circle by one of any dozen scientific or mathematical means, or you could just get some witnesses to verify that there is indeed no cat in the circle.

It isn't about whats true or false in a statement. It's about proving something by means of disproving. There is a vast difference between the two, a difference men (and women..I don't discriminate) with big, long beards like to ponder about on oak tables next to a fireplace.

Draw a circle on the ground. Say aloud, "A cat is not inside this circle."
Have you just proven a negative?.

As for the cat, what you have proven is merely the fact that you haven't seen a cat inside that circle at that time under that atmospheric preasure, temperature. Alternatively, you would have to prove that the cat isn't invisible. I guess you could say, there is no visible cat (by human eyes) in this circle.

All in all it's an utter chore the business of proving a negative. You would have to prove through millions of possible though highly implausible scenarios (intangible cat, invisible cat, submicroscopic cat, cat which exists a half second forward/behind you in the time stream, cat is there but your faith isn't great enough to see it...) that there is no cat there. Basically impossible, since most of those scenarios aren't testable.

Substitute "cat" with "Jesus" or "supreme being". Draw a circle and claim that Jesus doesn't exist there, and you will have people seriously argue with you that Jesus IS in there, and is everywhere- you just can't see, feel, touch, perceive it/him because he doesn't want you to. Possible? Yes. Plausible? not really, but to "prove a negative" you would have to disprove every one of these possible but extremely implausible scenarios.

This is why most rational people claim the burden of proof is on the claimant to prove that the positive claim is true. If I claim there's a cat you can't see inside that circle, I'd better be able to explain how and prove it to you, or the claim isn't worth much.

 

[geldonyetich]

But you can prove that no fraction exists that's equal to the square root of two.

Personally, I think that things which are removed from reality aren't significant to prove.

The thing about numbers is we basically shave off all the details to make numbers a useful tool. Two apples = 2. That the apples are not truly identical in real life on the grounds that their molecular structure is not exactly the same, they have a different history, what they might have been before they were apples (1 tree bearing nutrients that would later become apples), is removed so we have a nice, workable 2.

That established, we determine that no fraction exists that equal to the square of two, but who cares? Numbers are a tool we use to measure things, not real in and of themselves. The properties they exhibit seem very real, but given that we have established a very crude and firm set of limitations by which they must operate, how can they not? It's reality within the parameters of the unreal.

So, along these lines, I'm not getting as far as "can you prove a universal negative." I'm stopping at "can you prove a universal" (anything). Given the limits of human perception, what's really provable, down to its finest detail? Nothing.

That said, we can achieve a remarkable amount with our crude abstractions. That of all the insanity that the human mind generates in its relentless push to reduce reality into something workable, the true miracle is that some of this insanity seems to work, even capable of producing remarkable results. When things seem to work, this is the essence of "proof."

However, for scientist and philosopher alike, all proof exists to disprove should new details come to light. The moment you believe you have found a universal, irregardless of our limited means of perceiving the universe, therein lay a probable instance of pure delusion.

[Mind adequately limbered, perhaps we should move on to the question of what is a negative? A denial of something? A 0 in a 1 on 0 set? An opposite? These definitions in and of themselves ignore that the universe is not so black and white, that infinite possibilities exist between the opposites. A negative, like a number, is but a mental concept removed from reality... but certainly a useful tool nonetheless.

Jesus, God, Satan - prove them? Why prove abstract labels that seek to encapsulate things? Personally, I prefer the Buddha's method: live in the here and now, and learn to pay attention to what's in front of you instead of what's in your head.]

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

But you can prove that no fraction exists that's equal to the square root of two.

Personally, I think that things which are removed from reality aren't significant to prove.

The thing about numbers is we basically shave off all the details to make numbers a useful tool. Two apples = 2. That the apples are not truly identical in real life on the grounds that their molecular structure is not exactly the same, they have a different history, what they might have been before they were apples (1 tree bearing nutrients that would later become apples), is removed so we have a nice, workable 2.

That established, we determine that no fraction exists that equal to the square of two, but who cares? Numbers are a tool we use to measure things, not real in and of themselves. The properties they exhibit seem very real, but given that we have established a very crude and firm set of limitations by which they must operate, how can they not? It's reality within the parameters of the unreal.

So, along these lines, I'm not getting as far as "can you prove a universal negative." I'm stopping at "can you prove universal" (anything). Given the limits of human perception, what's really provable, down to its finest detail? Nothing.

That said, we can achieve a remarkable amount with our crude abstractions. That of all the insanity that the human mind generates in its relentless push to reduce reality into something workable, the true miracle is that some of this insanity seems to work, even capable of producing remarkable results. When things seem to work, this is the essence of "proof."

However, for scientist and philosopher alike, all proof exists to disprove should new details come to light. The moment you believe you have found a universal, irregardless of our limited means of perceiving the universe, therein lay a probable instance of pure delusion.

I agree wholeheartedly but for arguments sake, with terms of absolutes, you can find no closer example than in maths. Yes, if someone proves that 1 + 1 = 3, we are royally screwed as things we have built and designed will come into question but since maths, in itself, is not bound to confinement it cannot completely be removed from reality. Weirdly because we perceive reality through maths. Everything from inhaling to perceiving light is a coordination of numbers, ratios and probability.

Chances are that it took you an extensive amount of mathematical processing to type out your post. What does it matter?. Not much, given the context and where we are, but it adds up. A single act in itself may not bring about a vast change that we can perceive with our eyes but the mere fact that a fraction that does not equal to the square of two exists, means that somewhere someone is alive or dead because of that probability. It a highly implausible probability but a probability nonetheless.

 

[geldonyetich]

Spoiler

But you can prove that no fraction exists that's equal to the square root of two.

Personally, I think that things which are removed from reality aren't significant to prove.

The thing about numbers is we basically shave off all the details to make numbers a useful tool. Two apples = 2. That the apples are not truly identical in real life on the grounds that their molecular structure is not exactly the same, they have a different history, what they might have been before they were apples (1 tree bearing nutrients that would later become apples), is removed so we have a nice, workable 2.

That established, we determine that no fraction exists that equal to the square of two, but who cares? Numbers are a tool we use to measure things, not real in and of themselves. The properties they exhibit seem very real, but given that we have established a very crude and firm set of limitations by which they must operate, how can they not? It's reality within the parameters of the unreal.

So, along these lines, I'm not getting as far as "can you prove a universal negative." I'm stopping at "can you prove universal" (anything). Given the limits of human perception, what's really provable, down to its finest detail? Nothing.

That said, we can achieve a remarkable amount with our crude abstractions. That of all the insanity that the human mind generates in its relentless push to reduce reality into something workable, the true miracle is that some of this insanity seems to work, even capable of producing remarkable results. When things seem to work, this is the essence of "proof."

However, for scientist and philosopher alike, all proof exists to disprove should new details come to light. The moment you believe you have found a universal, irregardless of our limited means of perceiving the universe, therein lay a probable instance of pure delusion.

I agree wholeheartedly but for arguments sake, with terms of absolutes, you can find no closer example than in maths. Yes, if someone proves that 1 + 1 = 3, we are royally screwed as things we have built and designed will come into question but since maths, in itself, is not bound to confinement it cannot completely be removed from reality. Weirdly because we perceive reality through maths.

I wager a quantum physicist (or our own bodily rhythms [http://www.physorg.com/news132055021.html]) has already found 1 + 1 equals something other than 2, but we still roll with it because it produces results for matters of everyday measurement. This is how they form our perception of reality: as our tools to handle reality, identically to language.

It's a slippery slope. Once we speak a language, we begin to apply it to the universe around us, and this shapes our perception of the universe. But does the use of words actually cause physical changes in the universe itself? No (though some cultures believed so). So any reshaping going on at all would necessitate delusion to occur.

I will say that, in a point that supports math, we have found that there's some interesting correlations to be found in nature in things such as exponential growth (which works for living creatures identically to bank inflation) and plant spirals [http://www.math.smith.edu/phyllo/EXPO/].

However, the bottom line is that you'll never find a number in nature and be able to put it in a jar. It remains a mechanism of measurement. The numbers themselves may be meaningless, any purely numerical pattern breaks down the minute you switch to a base 11 system, but there are patterns we can find in nature as we measure with them that would appear in any base system which are (insofar as we're capable of perceiving) very real.

 

[JemJar]

Draw a circle on the ground. Say aloud, "A cat is not inside this circle."
Have you just proven a negative?.

Turning what I almost wrote on it's head:

What you've drawn is a circle. A circle is a 2 dimensional object and thus incapable of containing a 3 dimensional cat.

At least, in the standard dimensions of reference by which such petty things as "cats" and "people" are definied.

I'm going to work before this gets entirely out of hand.

 

[randomsix]

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking but I will attempt to sound like I do

The earth is not the center of the universe.

1 + 1 = 2 and no matter what 1 and 1 will always make 2.

Is that what you ment?

Add 1 molecule of conventional matter to one molecule of anti-matter and what do you get...?

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I'm not sure what you mean. Perhaps if you could give me an example of a universal negative.