Yes, but an absence of a proof of the positive is itself not proof of the negative, so if we’re in the unprovable unknown, we’re still back at the point that you can’t prove a negative.
Well, if the conditions are such that the positive would be absolutely certain to leave evidence, then the lack of said evidence is good enough. Like, I say it’s not snowing where I live. Absolutely nobody in my town sees so much as a single snowflake. Also, it’s 72° out. Haven’t I proven to a reasonable degree that it’s not snowing where I live?
That’s such a widely used concept and it’s erroneous. You can’t ALWAYS prove a negative. But if you’re able to prove a mutually exclusive positive to the negative condition, then you’ve proven it. For example, proving it is daytime where I’m standing also proves it is not nighttime where I’m standing.
There are circumstances where a negative cannot be practically proven, or without an absurd amount of work. But all you really need to do is empirically demonstrate the negative is the likeliest reasonable scenario and that’s usually good enough, except to someone obstinately trying to stay with their position and therefore demands absolute unequivocal proof - which is a rarity entirely.
You can’t prove a negative.
I can prove by evidence that there is no milk in this cup.
Yes but can you prove by evidence that there is no milk in my cup, if I won’t let you look inside?
Someone wants a glass of milk :-)
deleted by creator
༼ʘ̚ل͜ʘ̚༽ ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Proving the negative or positive would be equally hard then .
Yes, but an absence of a proof of the positive is itself not proof of the negative, so if we’re in the unprovable unknown, we’re still back at the point that you can’t prove a negative.
We were never at the point that you can’t prove a negative. That’s dumb & wrong.
A woman menstruating proves negative on pregnancy.
The existence of the largest prime was disproven thousands of years ago.
Well, if the conditions are such that the positive would be absolutely certain to leave evidence, then the lack of said evidence is good enough. Like, I say it’s not snowing where I live. Absolutely nobody in my town sees so much as a single snowflake. Also, it’s 72° out. Haven’t I proven to a reasonable degree that it’s not snowing where I live?
If you enumerate each particle in the cup and verify that it is not a milk particle, yes.
(Milk is a complex colloid of multiple compounds, so good luck with that.)
That’s such a widely used concept and it’s erroneous. You can’t ALWAYS prove a negative. But if you’re able to prove a mutually exclusive positive to the negative condition, then you’ve proven it. For example, proving it is daytime where I’m standing also proves it is not nighttime where I’m standing.
There are circumstances where a negative cannot be practically proven, or without an absurd amount of work. But all you really need to do is empirically demonstrate the negative is the likeliest reasonable scenario and that’s usually good enough, except to someone obstinately trying to stay with their position and therefore demands absolute unequivocal proof - which is a rarity entirely.
You can’t prove a universal negative.
You can prove specific negatives by providing counter evidence. Thing like “I am not a woman” by proving “I am a man”.