Haven't read the article yet, but noting that it comes from a philosophy
department....
'Proof' is more a mathematical/logical construct than an empirical one.
Certainly, mathematically you can prove that a negative statement is true ("one
plus one equals three in Euclidean mathematics).
However, to demonstrate empirically that a negative statement is true, one
would either have to sample the entire population of events, or else
demonstrate that one had a complete set of natural laws covering the event plus
a perfectly representative sample.
So, while one can demonstrate that an event is highly unlikely, I would be
skeptical about a claim to prove that the event could not exist.
Now to read the article.....
On Nov 13, 2011, at 12:55 PM, Jeffry Ricker, PhD wrote:
Hi all,
I suspect that many of us, when we teach students to 'think critically', state
that "one can't prove a negative." Here's a brief article that provides a
counter-argument to this claim, at a level that students (and I) can understand:
Hales, S. (2005). You Can Prove a Negative. Think, 10, 109-12. Retrieved from
http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articles/proveanegative.html
Here are some excerpts:
"Some people seem to think that you can’t prove a specific sort of negative
claim, namely that a thing does not exist. So it is impossible to prove that
Santa Claus, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, God, pink elephants, WMD in Iraq,
and Bigfoot don’t exist. Of course, this rather depends on what one has in mind
by ‘prove.’...
"Maybe people mean that no inductive argument will conclusively, indubitably
prove a negative proposition beyond all
shadow of a doubt. For example, suppose someone argues that we’ve scoured the
world for Bigfoot, found no credible
evidence of Bigfoot’s existence, and therefore there is no Bigfoot. A classic
inductive argument. A Sasquatch defender can always rejoin that Bigfoot is
reclusive, and might just be hiding in that next stand of trees. You can’t
prove he’s not!...
"The very nature of an inductive argument is to make a conclusion probable, but
not certain, given the truth of the
premises.... Despite its fallibility, induction is vital in every aspect of our
lives, from the mundane to the most
sophisticated science. Without induction we know basically nothing about the
world apart from our own immediate perceptions.... You can prove a negative —
at least as much as you can prove anything at all."
Best,
Jeff
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffry Ricker, Ph.D.
SCC: Professor of Psychology
MCCCD: General Studies Faculty Representative
PSY 101 Website: http://sccpsy101.wordpress.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scottsdale Community College
9000 E. Chaparral Road
Scottsdale, AZ 85256-2626
Office: SB-123
Phone: (480) 423-6213
Fax: (480) 423-6298
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as:
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>.
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13438.3b5166ef147b143fedd04b1c4a64900b&n=T&l=tips&o=14127
(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
or send a blank email to
leave-14127-13438.3b5166ef147b143fedd04b1c4a649...@fsulist.frostburg.edu<mailto:leave-14127-13438.3b5166ef147b143fedd04b1c4a649...@fsulist.frostburg.edu>
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=14128
or send a blank email to
leave-14128-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
