Can You Prove A Negative?

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Overall

While proving negatives can be challenging, it's definitely not impossible. We do it all the time in science, law, and everyday life.

Joeseph

You cannot prove anything.

MayCaesar

Proof of a negative statement is very common in mathematics. For example, "There exist no functions that are differentiable, but not continuous" is a fairly easily provable statement. If you can prove that the existence of something would result in a contradiction, then you have proven that it does not exist.

Now, "proof" in natural sciences is not the same as "proof" in mathematics. When you "prove" something, say, in chemistry, you do not prove with 100% certainty that something is true: rather, you demonstrate that a particular phenomenon is either consistently observed, or consistently fails to be observed. Xenon is an inert gas that does not react with oxygen directly (albeit it can form compounds with oxygen through hydrolysis), and that can be "proven" by putting oxygen and xenon in the same chamber and letting them be there for weeks, months, years, making measurements showing that the gas molecules remain unchanged.

"Proof" in our everyday life is less definitive still. For example, in the court of law "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is often used, where the hypothesis best aligning with evidence is assumed to be true. If someone has not been directly proven to have murdered his neighbor, but no explanation where he has not murdered him seems to make all pieces of evidence make sense, then he may be declared guilty.

Phenomena that cannot be proven to either exist or not exist are a philosophical abstraction and, in a proper epistemology, do not exist. If "god" is defined in such a way that it is impossible to perform an experiment demonstrating its existence, then it is a useless concept that should be discarded without any further examination. Something existence of which does not make any difference in the observations, for all intents and purposes, does not exist. Invisible massless unicorns do not exist, because the assumption of their existence does not make a difference in anything: it is an extraneous assumption that only clutters the informational space and adds nothing to the discussion.

Barnardot

@JulesKorngold In the old days before we had digital cameras it was the case that the negative was the proof.

Take a look at the Princess of Wales. She tried to hide her cancer by photo shopping the picture and it is very hard to prove what the actual real picture was like. But when we had film you could always go back to the negative as being reliable evidence. Even if you tried to tamper with the negative it would show.

Putin

You can't I can. I'm a whole lot smarter than you.

Barnardot

@Putin ;You can't I can. I'm a whole lot smarter than you.

Okay then. Then prove that the guy who plays the piano with his di*k got those rag heads to kill all those people at the rock concert?