Hi Isn't there a danger that articles like this might lead someone (who perhaps only reads the title and abstract) to believe that indeed their beliefs in the existence of X are valid until someone disproves it? After all, the article asserts (sort of) that you can prove a negative.
It appears better to me if we teach that the degree of confidence that we have in the existence of X depends on the strength (amount, quality) of the evidence for X. Lacking any credible evidence for the existence of X, we have little (~0) belief in X. Stated bluntly, we do not (or should not) believe things that lack evidence for them. As evidence accumulates, so our confidence in the belief increases. I forget whether it was with Jeff or someone else, but I recall a debate some time ago about what a skeptic was ... one view being that skeptics are silent on issues until there is evidence for or against the issue (i.e., skeptics start out sitting on the fence), and another view (one I prefer) closer to what I have stated above; that is, skeptics have a lack of belief until evidence accrues to move us from the null position. Take care Jim James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax [email protected] >>> "Jeffry Ricker, PhD" <[email protected]> 13-Nov-11 12:55:00 PM >>> 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]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a891720c9&n=T&l=tips&o=14127 or send a blank email to leave-14127-13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a89172...@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=14135 or send a blank email to leave-14135-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
