3 ms·
> It's like proving a negative. "You can't prove a negative" is one of dopey philosophical slogans[1] that are meaningless in practice. It gives undue weight t
by incrudible 5y ago
> It's like proving a negative.
"You can't prove a negative" is one of dopey philosophical slogans[1] that are meaningless in practice. It gives undue weight to absolutes that do not exist in reality. The statement "money doesn't grow on trees" is obviously true, yet you can't logically rule out the existence of such a tree. What are the practical implications of this? None.
If we tested a hypothesis thoroughly, we can say that it is true or not true, not with absolute platonic certainty, but for all intents and purposes.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo
- jacquesm 5y agoAgain, you don't understand how testing for medicine efficacy works. Your comment history shows long exchanges where you end up in the same spot as where you started without gaining any insight so I am not going to continue this conversation, life is way too short as it is. An attempt was made to explain something to you, it is then up to you to extract value. Have a good day, nevertheless.
- incrudible 5y ago> Again, you don't understand how testing for medicine efficacy works. I understand perfectly well how the process works. I understand your objection. It is not wrong, it is merely of no consequence. Outside the realm of logical posturing, "evidence of absence" is valid. In the real world, you need to distinguish between there being "no evidence (but we haven't looked)" and "no evidence (but we have looked everywhere)" and everything in between. Any treatment starts out unproven, but as the evidence of absence mounts, the impetus to look even further dwindles, to the point where a treatment can be considered proven ineffective, again, for all intents and purposes.