You can prove a negative. - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
#15178157
B0ycey wrote:In what sense? Is it your opinion that the sentence is wrong and that is your proposition or is it merely a statement of action to deduce burden of proof (intent). But I warn you now if you believe the former, that isn't how the sentence is executed in the scientific community or court of law. :roll:


"You can't prove a negative" is a proposition in that it is a complete thought that is capable of being true or false. The burden of proof has nothing to do with intent, it is about an epistemic attitude. In a court of law, the one making the positive claim, the accuser, faces the burden of proof because he wants the court to make the judgment that the defendant is guilty.
#15178161
Saeko wrote:"You can't prove a negative" is a proposition in that it is a complete thought that is capable of being true or false. The burden of proof has nothing to do with intent, it is about an epistemic attitude. In a court of law, the one making the positive claim, the accuser, faces the burden of proof because he wants the court to make the judgment that the defendant is guilty.


If it is thought of being either true or false, it would be a fact. Ironically the sentence itself is a negative so again how can it be a proposition? I struggle to take you seriously given you said it has nothing to do with burden of proof. Its whole meaning implies that no proof can be provided ffs.

As I said, I know the meaning. And you sound silly to me right now given you are digging. Also if you think the sentence "Not all swans are White" has a negative in it or can even be used as an example for that statement you are very wrong indeed.
#15178164
Pants-of-dog wrote:The claim “not all swans are white” is a negative claim.


But you prove it by proving its negation, namely, there is at least one swan that is not white. You don't say "not all swans are white and if you disagree is up to you to prove me wrong". Instead what you do is say "not all swans are white, indeed, here's a black swan"
#15178170
B0ycey wrote:If it is thought of being either true or false, it would be a fact. Ironically the sentence itself is a negative so again how can it be a proposition? I struggle to take you seriously given you said it has nothing to do with burden of proof. Its whole meaning implies that no proof can be provided ffs.

As I said, I know the meaning. And you sound silly to me right now given you are digging. Also if you think the sentence "Not all swans are White" has a negative in it or can even be used as an example for that statement you are very wrong indeed.


A fact is not a proposition. A fact is what makes a proposition true or false. The proposition "Snow is white" is a proposition because it is capable of being either true or false. The fact that snow is white is what makes the proposition "Snow is white" true.

The distinction of "positive" or "negative" as applied to propositions is a syntactic and not a semantic distinction. Syntactic distinctions have to do with the form of a statement and have nothing to do with its content (its semantics, that is, its meaning). The proposition "not all swans are white" is a negative proposition because it has the word "not" at the highest level of logical precedence.
#15178173
Saeko wrote:A fact is not a proposition. A fact is what makes a proposition true or false. The proposition "Snow is white" is a proposition because it is capable of being either true or false. The fact that snow is white is what makes the proposition "Snow is white" true.

The distinction of "positive" or "negative" as applied to propositions is a syntactic and not a semantic distinction. Syntactic distinctions have to do with the form of a statement and have nothing to do with its content (its semantics, that is, its meaning). The proposition "not all swans are white" is a negative proposition because it has the word "not" at the highest level of logical precedence.


A proposition is merely a statement of opinion. You want an example. Here is one. "Not all swans are white". You can't prove a negative is not a proposition unless you want to disagree with it. The statement is merely used to distinguish burden of proof. And given it is used as a comment very often on PoFo whenever someone is cornered or trying to explain why they can't prove a blatant lie (Trumps voting fraud claim), I don't really know what you are trying to achieve here given you should know this. I have explained in laymen what it means already as it happens. If you want to disagree because you unfortunately wrote a post to PoD just before I did and wanted your post to still be relevant, not my problem.
#15178174
B0ycey wrote:A proposition is merely a statement of opinion. You want an example. Here is one. "Not all swans are white". You can't prove a negative is not a proposition unless you want to disagree with it. The statement is merely used to distinguish burden of proof. And given it is used as a comment very often on PoFo whenever someone is cornered or trying to explain why they can't prove a blatant lie (Trumps voting fraud claim), I don't really know what you are trying to achieve here given you should know this. I have explained in laymen what it means already as it happens. If you want to disagree because you unfortunately wrote a post to PoD just before I did and wanted your post to still be relevant, not my problem.


Boycey, it's obviously clear that you've never studied logic in any capacity, yet you feel utterly convinced that your confusions about very simple matters of logic are correct. It might be a good idea to read a book or two before opining on these matters.

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

First published Mon Dec 19, 2005; substantive revision Thu Jan 25, 2018

The term ‘proposition’ has a broad use in contemporary philosophy. It is used to refer to some or all of the following: the primary bearers of truth-value, the objects of belief and other “propositional attitudes” (i.e., what is believed, doubted, etc.[1]), the referents of that-clauses, and the meanings of sentences.

One might wonder whether a single class of entities can play all these roles. If David Lewis (1986, p. 54) is right in saying that “the conception we associate with the word ‘proposition’ may be something of a jumble of conflicting desiderata,” then it will be impossible to capture our conception in a consistent definition.

The best way to proceed, when dealing with quasi-technical words like ‘proposition’, may be to stipulate a definition and proceed with caution, making sure not to close off any substantive issues by definitional fiat.

Propositions, we shall say, are the sharable objects of the attitudes and the primary bearers of truth and falsity. This stipulation rules out certain candidates for propositions, including thought- and utterance-tokens, which presumably are not sharable, and concrete events or facts, which presumably cannot be false. These consequences fit well with contemporary usage. Our definition leaves open many of the questions dividing propositionalists: which additional roles are propositions fit to play? would propositions have to be mind-independent or abstract? what individuation conditions would they have? how would they relate to facts? We examine these issues below, as well as the fundamental issue of whether there are propositions at all.
#15178176
I am struggling to see what you have provided refutes anything I said. Just curious but is 2+2=4 a proposition? But given I am busy and have said what I have said and explained all that needs to be explained, I am going to leave here, because as it happens, I have never studied philosophy so I will give you that one. :lol:
#15178177
B0ycey wrote:I am struggling to see what you have provided refutes anything I said. Just curious but is 2+2=4 a proposition? But given I am busy and have said what I have said and explained all that needs to be explained, I am going to leave here, because as it happens, I have never studied philosophy so I will give you that one. :lol:


Yes, 2+2=4 is indeed a proposition.
#15178181
B0ycey wrote:Not a fact?


I mean, it's a true proposition. But you can actually prove it and not simply stare "it's a fact" by using the axioms of addition defined in the integers.
#15178182
wat0n wrote:I mean, it's a true proposition. But you can actually prove it and not simply stare "it's a fact" by using the axioms of addition defined in the integers.


Proposition comes from the word propose. I am not saying that propositions can't be true, but once they are proven to be true, they become facts.
#15178184
B0ycey wrote:Proposition comes from the word propose. I am not saying that propositions can't be true, but once they are proven to be true, they become facts.


Indeed but that is a key nuance to consider.
#15178189
wat0n wrote:But you prove it by proving its negation, namely, there is at least one swan that is not white. You don't say "not all swans are white and if you disagree is up to you to prove me wrong". Instead what you do is say "not all swans are white, indeed, here's a black swan"


You are correct. I do not make claims and then assume it is up to others to disprove them.

But many people make negative claims and then when I ask them to support said claims, they tell me that they have no burden of proof since “you can’t prove a negative”.

And they say that it is then up to me to disprove the claim.

So you agree that when people do this, it is a ploy to switch burden of proof.
#15178202
Pants-of-dog wrote:You are correct. I do not make claims and then assume it is up to others to disprove them.

But many people make negative claims and then when I ask them to support said claims, they tell me that they have no burden of proof since “you can’t prove a negative”.

And they say that it is then up to me to disprove the claim.

So you agree that when people do this, it is a ploy to switch burden of proof.


Have you considered that in that case people mean "there is no evidence that the negation of your claim is false" meaning "you have not shown your claim is true"?

Furthermore, there are negative claims you can't simply prove with a counterexample. I can't prove "John has not broken the law" with examples, even checking John's criminal history and finding he has none would not amount to a definitive proof if you wanted to be strict and counterargue it's possible John has broken the law but has not been caught yet.

Now, if what you mean is that you can prove impossibility claims (which imply several negative claims, “not all swans are white” follows from "it's impossible for all swans to be white"), then you would be correct. It is definitely possible to prove impossibility.
#15178207
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

To be honest, I just want people to stop hiding behind this illogical meme.


PoD, just keep doing what you do. NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY, pisses off right wingers like you do. And that is something you should be proud of.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I'd be totally happy for us to send ground troop i[…]

Any of you going to buy the Trump bible he's promo[…]

Moving the goalposts won't change the facts on th[…]

There were formidable defense lines in the Donbas[…]