Timeline for What practical methods can be used to prove a negative claim?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 25, 2015 at 16:27 | history | edited | Jo Wehler | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Jul 24, 2015 at 4:44 | history | edited | Jo Wehler | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Jul 23, 2015 at 22:14 | comment | added | crthompson | Please rest, I certainly dont require an immediate answer. I apologize if I miss your point. By positive, i mean tangible. Bigfoot is the claim. So if you say he exists then show proof of it. The negative is the opposite. I couldnt possibly test every square inch of the planet and say with certainty that there is no bigfoot on the earth. Its as if I told you that there were an english speaking colony of pink buffalo on saturn. Carl Sagan popularized the phrase "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I better have some extraordinary evidence if i'm going to make that claim. | |
| Jul 23, 2015 at 22:03 | comment | added | user13955 | @paqogomez Yes, anything could take some kind of --direction-- thing, of course, I started feel like this is the matter of the definition of the words of positive and negative. I am afraid let me have personal fun or rest for a while.......thank you. | |
| Jul 23, 2015 at 21:57 | comment | added | crthompson | @KentaroTomono perhaps tired has gotten to you a bit. I tried really hard to follow your point in that comment, but could not. Your previous comment however was clear. I understood you to mean that once a point is stated it gives direction to the argument. With that I agree, but its still the positive aspect of the point that needs to be proven. Not the negative. | |
| Jul 23, 2015 at 21:49 | comment | added | user13955 | @paqogomez I learned a bit of Russel's teapot. But the answer to you, could be "then so what?" with sorry. The problem of could be or could not be, I think was annulled when once gnashar729 said if it were... thing. Or more correctly saying, I am not sure what Mr. gnashar729 is trying to mean by his first statement. I meant by the phrase at the ultimate end, somewhere at the endpoint which I don't know, as after that I wrote Whatever that could mean. I think further discussion might kill my nerve with smile and apology........ | |
| Jul 23, 2015 at 18:52 | comment | added | MrWonderful | @gnasher729 - The claim "Bigfoot exists" is provable. One must only capture a Bigfoot. It is wholly impractical to prove it isn't true, however it could be proven true at any moment. Much like, if God appeared to the world simultaneously and performed whatever 'magic' were requested of Him, some more-than-current number of people would likely believe in God afterward. Some would likely still reject the evidence because it doesn't suit their mental model of the universe, so there would have to be another explanation. People can just reject truth by choosing to. | |
| Jul 23, 2015 at 18:30 | comment | added | user13955 | @paqogomez No, I didn't try to mean it. Once you say, -- because it isn't true, then instantly and simultaneously you gave some definition to it what kind of context the message is in. ( I am sorry, here it is deep night, so let me hit the sack. ) | |
| Jul 23, 2015 at 18:11 | comment | added | crthompson | @KentaroTomono you've got a double negative in that last sentence, but I think your point is that gnasher shouldnt say its not true. I agree with gnasher but in reality, he should probably say he's agnostic about it. It cannot be proven, but cannot be disproved. In the same way Russel's teapot cannot be proven or disproved. | |
| Jul 23, 2015 at 16:57 | comment | added | user13955 | I think the questioner is asking about the metaphysically aka from the religious side claim which is at the ultimate end negative. ( Whatever that word could mean. ) So I don't think it is not a good idea for you to say because it isn't true --> gnasher729. Thank you. | |
| Jul 23, 2015 at 16:48 | comment | added | gnasher729 | "Bigfoot exists", if it were true, would be very easily provable - just catch a Bigfoot. It's only hard to prove because it isn't true. | |
| Jul 23, 2015 at 16:22 | history | edited | Jo Wehler | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 3 characters in body
|
| Jul 23, 2015 at 16:14 | history | answered | Jo Wehler | CC BY-SA 3.0 |