*

Online markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3760
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #220 on: January 12, 2014, 06:50:52 PM »
I see.

Person 1: Does the boogeyman exist?

Person 2: No...

Person 1: Ha! You just claimed that the boogeyman doesn't exist! Now you have to prove it!
Person 2: Here are some reported pictures of the boogey man.  This is why they are not genuine.  All pictures that have been reported of the boogeyman have been looked at and determined to be either faked or a case of mistaken identity.  Therefore, I conclude that there is not enough evidence to confirm the existence of a boogeyman.  Because these pictures are the most likely source of proof of the boogey man, I have concluded that the boogeyman does not exist.

That's an "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" argument.
No Tom, that's called "refuting evidence".  Person 2 collected evidence and then showed why that evidence is not valid.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #221 on: January 12, 2014, 07:15:49 PM »
I see.

Person 1: Does the boogeyman exist?

Person 2: No...

Person 1: Ha! You just claimed that the boogeyman doesn't exist! Now you have to prove it!
Person 2: Here are some reported pictures of the boogey man.  This is why they are not genuine.  All pictures that have been reported of the boogeyman have been looked at and determined to be either faked or a case of mistaken identity.  Therefore, I conclude that there is not enough evidence to confirm the existence of a boogeyman.  Because these pictures are the most likely source of proof of the boogey man, I have concluded that the boogeyman does not exist.

That's an "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" argument.
No Tom, that's called "refuting evidence".  Person 2 collected evidence and then showed why that evidence is not valid.

Person 1 did not present any evidence. If Person 2 collects a child's drawing of the boogeyman from the internet and criticizes it, it is not a "refutation of evidence".

The absence of evidence argument is explicit:  "Therefore, I conclude that there is not enough evidence to confirm the existence of a boogeyman."

Offline bj1234

  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #222 on: January 12, 2014, 09:09:56 PM »
I see.

Person 1: Does the boogeyman exist?

Person 2: No...

Person 1: Ha! You just claimed that the boogeyman doesn't exist! Now you have to prove it!
Person 2: Here are some reported pictures of the boogey man.  This is why they are not genuine.  All pictures that have been reported of the boogeyman have been looked at and determined to be either faked or a case of mistaken identity.  Therefore, I conclude that there is not enough evidence to confirm the existence of a boogeyman.  Because these pictures are the most likely source of proof of the boogey man, I have concluded that the boogeyman does not exist.

That's an "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" argument.
No Tom, that's called "refuting evidence".  Person 2 collected evidence and then showed why that evidence is not valid.

Person 1 did not present any evidence. If Person 2 collects a child's drawing of the boogeyman from the internet and criticizes it, it is not a "refutation of evidence".

The absence of evidence argument is explicit:  "Therefore, I conclude that there is not enough evidence to confirm the existence of a boogeyman."
Who said anything about a child's drawing?  I said pictures. Or should I have been more exact for your pedantic self and said photographic pictures?.  And note, person 2 collected the pictures.  He supplied support for his claim.

Also, if Person 2 did refute a child's drawing and came to the conclusion, Person 1 would say that Person 2 did not sufficiently meet the burden of proof.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #223 on: January 13, 2014, 02:27:15 AM »
Who said anything about a child's drawing?  I said pictures. Or should I have been more exact for your pedantic self and said photographic pictures?.  And note, person 2 collected the pictures.  He supplied support for his claim.

Also, if Person 2 did refute a child's drawing and came to the conclusion, Person 1 would say that Person 2 did not sufficiently meet the burden of proof.

Posting a few photographs from the internet and explaining them as the result of over exposure or other photograph issues does not prove that the boogeyman does not exist.

The absence of evidence argument is used to disprove the boogeyman in your example:  "Therefore, I conclude that there is not enough evidence to confirm the existence of a boogeyman."
« Last Edit: January 13, 2014, 02:30:33 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline bj1234

  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #224 on: January 13, 2014, 02:52:23 AM »
Who said anything about a child's drawing?  I said pictures. Or should I have been more exact for your pedantic self and said photographic pictures?.  And note, person 2 collected the pictures.  He supplied support for his claim.

Also, if Person 2 did refute a child's drawing and came to the conclusion, Person 1 would say that Person 2 did not sufficiently meet the burden of proof.

Posting a few photographs from the internet and explaining them as the result of over exposure or other photograph issues does not prove that the boogeyman does not exist.

The absence of evidence argument is used to disprove the boogeyman in your example:  "Therefore, I conclude that there is not enough evidence to confirm the existence of a boogeyman."
The point is that Person 2 went and did the legwork to back up his claim.  If Person 1 wants to refute that claim with another claim, Person 1 needs to do the legwork.  Person 2 cannot just say, The bogeyman does not exist, prove me wrong as you seem to think you can by making negative claims without backing them up.

Otherwise it turns into a school yard spat
Person 1: The bogeyman doesn't exist
Person 2: Yes he does, here is a picture of him
Person 1: That in not a real picture of the bogeyman
Person 2: Yes it is, why isn't it real?
Person 1: I don't have to tell you, I gave a negative claim
Person 2: But why isn't it real?
Person 1: Negative claim
Etc.

As has been shown, ALL claims need to be supported.  Do you really need me to go look up the link that specifically states so again?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #225 on: January 13, 2014, 03:06:46 AM »
What are you talking about? We're talking about the absence of evidence. The absence of evidence argument is used to disprove the boogeyman in your example:  "Therefore, I conclude that there is not enough evidence to confirm the existence of a boogeyman."

So, is absence of evidence a perfectly fine rebuttal now?


Offline bj1234

  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #226 on: January 13, 2014, 03:12:59 AM »
What are you talking about? We're talking about the absence of evidence. The absence of evidence argument is used to disprove the boogeyman in your example:  "Therefore, I conclude that there is not enough evidence to confirm the existence of a boogeyman."

So, is absence of evidence a perfectly fine rebuttal now?
When you have searched the likely places for that evidence if it were to exist.  We have already been over that.

Looking in your briefcase for documents on a satellite does not meet this standard.  The documents, if they existed are not likely to be in your briefcase.

Looking on a website dedicated to the existence of bogeymen and explaining the pictures would.  The evidence of bogeymen, if it were to exist, would likely be located on a website dedicated to the existence of bogeymen.

I really don't know how you are not getting that point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence#Absence_of_evidence

Quote
in the absence of evidence rendering the existence of some entity probable, we are justified in believing that it does not exist, provided that (1) it is not something that might leave no traces and (2) we have comprehensively surveyed the area where the evidence would be found if the entity existed...
« Last Edit: January 13, 2014, 03:16:26 AM by bj1234 »

*

Online markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3760
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #227 on: January 13, 2014, 04:25:38 AM »
So, is absence of evidence a perfectly fine rebuttal now?
Only when not used fallaciously.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #228 on: January 13, 2014, 04:37:35 AM »
What are you talking about? We're talking about the absence of evidence. The absence of evidence argument is used to disprove the boogeyman in your example:  "Therefore, I conclude that there is not enough evidence to confirm the existence of a boogeyman."

So, is absence of evidence a perfectly fine rebuttal now?
When you have searched the likely places for that evidence if it were to exist.  We have already been over that.

Looking in your briefcase for documents on a satellite does not meet this standard.  The documents, if they existed are not likely to be in your briefcase.

Looking on a website dedicated to the existence of bogeymen and explaining the pictures would.  The evidence of bogeymen, if it were to exist, would likely be located on a website dedicated to the existence of bogeymen.

I really don't know how you are not getting that point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence#Absence_of_evidence

Quote
in the absence of evidence rendering the existence of some entity probable, we are justified in believing that it does not exist, provided that (1) it is not something that might leave no traces and (2) we have comprehensively surveyed the area where the evidence would be found if the entity existed...

I did look in the most likely place for evidence that the satellite was built to be magnetically resistant. I inquired with the sole source making that claim.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2014, 04:41:48 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline bj1234

  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #229 on: January 13, 2014, 05:01:45 AM »
Except that the claim was this.

All measurements are experiments. The gravity space missions were uncontrolled. It does not conform to the scientific method, which demands that trials are controlled. Trying to pass off something uncontrolled and unscientific as scientific is reprehensible. I would suggest that you and the 'scientists' at NASA go back to middle school and learn some science.

I've read all about the gravity space experiments. No controls were used what-so-ever. The data could have been controlled by repeating the experiment numerous times with different kinds of gravimeters, to see if the results changed over time or from device to device. Both land and space and land measurements could have been taken simultaneously to ensure a proper reading. Instruments used to test the strength of the earth's magnetic field could have been included in the system.

1. I know that earth based gravimeters have not been used to verify satellite based measurements because no such trials have been associated with the data.

I believe this is the point that people started questioning the veracity of your stance.  You did not provide where you looked and acquired this knowledge.  You then started to claim that you did not need to back up a negative claim.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #230 on: January 13, 2014, 06:50:02 AM »
Incorrect. I provided evidence that the experiment was uncontrolled by directing the thread's participants to look at their own sources they had posted which describe the experiment.

Offline bj1234

  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #231 on: January 13, 2014, 06:56:09 AM »
The original claim was that gravity varied over the surface of the earth.  It was supported by a gravity map.  This piece of evidence was disputed by you with your aforementioned claims that you knew that it was uncontrolled.  When asked to back your claims up, you shouted "negative claim!" And tried to shift the burden to the others who were questioning your claim.  This is where the issue lies.  ALL claims Ned to be supported.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #232 on: January 13, 2014, 09:13:33 AM »
The original claim was that gravity varied over the surface of the earth.  It was supported by a gravity map.  This piece of evidence was disputed by you with your aforementioned claims that you knew that it was uncontrolled.  When asked to back your claims up, you shouted "negative claim!"

I would recommend looking at the thread again. Claiming that the experiment was uncontrolled was a positive claim which I provided evidence for.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5598
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #233 on: January 13, 2014, 12:24:39 PM »
The original claim was that gravity varied over the surface of the earth.  It was supported by a gravity map.  This piece of evidence was disputed by you with your aforementioned claims that you knew that it was uncontrolled.  When asked to back your claims up, you shouted "negative claim!"


I would recommend looking at the thread again. Claiming that the experiment was uncontrolled was a positive claim which I provided evidence for.

You provided no evidence, nor any sources that would indicate that you had looked. The people
posting on this site are not the most likely place you will find evidence of gravity maps or controls on experiments. You also have never dealt with the there being multiple ways to set up experiments, not all of which require a laboratory setting tightly controlling all variables.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Online markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3760
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #234 on: January 13, 2014, 01:26:59 PM »
The original claim was that gravity varied over the surface of the earth.  It was supported by a gravity map.  This piece of evidence was disputed by you with your aforementioned claims that you knew that it was uncontrolled.  When asked to back your claims up, you shouted "negative claim!"

I would recommend looking at the thread again. Claiming that the experiment was uncontrolled was a positive claim which I provided evidence for.
Yes, and I showed you that your claim was invalid because the gravity probe itself is the control.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #235 on: January 14, 2014, 08:25:44 PM »
I see.

Person 1: Does the boogeyman exist?

Person 2: No...

Person 1: Ha! You just claimed that the boogeyman doesn't exist! Now you have to prove it!

You're simply choosing to use examples that are practically unverifiable (assuming that the whole universe counts as a possible domain for ghosts and boogeymen).  We can't scour the entire universe for ghosts and boogeymen.  Beyond the practical hurdles, the statement "The boogeyman does not exist" absolutely can be proven using deductive reasoning.  It's trivially easy.

When you were talking about windows it was much more obvious that the negative/positive distinction is a superfluous one that leads to absurdities.  You have yet to even define it or explain how to identify it.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.