4 ms·

You can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on whoever makes the claim— that wolf packs are led by alpha male wolves– not on everybody else to prove they

You can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on whoever makes the claim— that wolf packs are led by alpha male wolves– not on everybody else to prove they aren't. One experiment in very unnatural conditions showed these results. They were not observed in subsequent studies that were better designed. Why would someone conduct an expensive study specifically to search for phenomena observed once but never again? Because of people so insecure they need to justify their antisocial, domineering behavior through unrelated research?

pxc 4y ago
> You can't prove a negative. Idk why this saying persists. Many, many negatives are easy to prove. For instance, it is very provable that an adult elephant is not sleeping in your bed right now.
- DrewADesign 4y ago
  > Idk why this saying persists. Many, many negatives are easy to prove. For instance, it is very provable that an adult elephant is not sleeping in your bed right now. Sure in situations where you can see 100% of my beds, but the only meaningful context for that phrase is when you're trying to generalize information to learn about more than one thing in the world. You know... What studies do. The whole point of the scientific method. So what burden of proof would you recommend beyond subsequent observational studies in wolf behavior not showing this phenomena? Or were you just using a deliberately obtuse interpretation of that phrase for pure pedantry?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- marketerinland 4y ago
  It’s invisible.
- amalcon 4y ago
  Yeah, for some reason people say "you can't prove a negative" but mean "you can't prove a universal". Any positive assertion can be trivially restated as a negative assertion, so it would be impossible to prove anything if it were impossible to probe a negative. Any negative assertion can likewise be trivially restated as a positive assertion. Hell, "you can't prove a negative" is itself a negative -- so it's tautologically impossible to prove that you can't prove a negative (either because it's false or because it's true).
- YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
  It's meant in the context of accusations where the accused is asked to prove they didn't do it. "Can you prove you didn't throw away the murder weapon somewhere nobody can find it?". Well, no, you can't. Also, more appropriately, in the sense of the problem of induction (see Hume). You can't prove that there are no black swans, until you've observed a black swan. And, no, if you asserted that an adult elephant is sleeping in the OP's bed right now, they wouldn't be able to disprove it to you.
  - pxc 4y ago
    The problem of induction doesn't have anything to do with negation, and it's just as unsolved for positive statements. And nobody who says 'you can't prove a negative' is trying to say 'empirical science is founded on unjustified inferences and we take law-like behavior completely for granted'. In fact they're often, as here, trying to demarcate legitimate scientific inquiry from somehow malformed scientific questions, when the problem of induction is as serious a problem for the former as it is anywhere.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
      Not negation, but refutation, and yes, you can refute a false induction given an observation that contradicts it. But you cannot prove a positive induction, no matter the evidence. I forget what we were arguing about. Please go ahead and have the last word and thanks for the exchange.
      - pxc 4y ago
        I was just pet peevin' about a phrase that I think is unfortunate because it itself is very misleading and often gets used in place of or alongside much clearer, better arguments. :) But I'm tired of it, too, by now. Thanks for your engagement as well, even though I took us on a detour!
        DrewADesign 4y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedant

pxc 4y ago

> You can't prove a negative. Idk why this saying persists. Many, many negatives are easy to prove. For instance, it is very provable that an adult elephant is not sleeping in your bed right now.

DrewADesign 4y ago
> Idk why this saying persists. Many, many negatives are easy to prove. For instance, it is very provable that an adult elephant is not sleeping in your bed right now. Sure in situations where you can see 100% of my beds, but the only meaningful context for that phrase is when you're trying to generalize information to learn about more than one thing in the world. You know... What studies do. The whole point of the scientific method. So what burden of proof would you recommend beyond subsequent observational studies in wolf behavior not showing this phenomena? Or were you just using a deliberately obtuse interpretation of that phrase for pure pedantry?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
marketerinland 4y ago
It’s invisible.
amalcon 4y ago
Yeah, for some reason people say "you can't prove a negative" but mean "you can't prove a universal". Any positive assertion can be trivially restated as a negative assertion, so it would be impossible to prove anything if it were impossible to probe a negative. Any negative assertion can likewise be trivially restated as a positive assertion. Hell, "you can't prove a negative" is itself a negative -- so it's tautologically impossible to prove that you can't prove a negative (either because it's false or because it's true).
YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
It's meant in the context of accusations where the accused is asked to prove they didn't do it. "Can you prove you didn't throw away the murder weapon somewhere nobody can find it?". Well, no, you can't. Also, more appropriately, in the sense of the problem of induction (see Hume). You can't prove that there are no black swans, until you've observed a black swan. And, no, if you asserted that an adult elephant is sleeping in the OP's bed right now, they wouldn't be able to disprove it to you.
- pxc 4y ago
  The problem of induction doesn't have anything to do with negation, and it's just as unsolved for positive statements. And nobody who says 'you can't prove a negative' is trying to say 'empirical science is founded on unjustified inferences and we take law-like behavior completely for granted'. In fact they're often, as here, trying to demarcate legitimate scientific inquiry from somehow malformed scientific questions, when the problem of induction is as serious a problem for the former as it is anywhere.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
    Not negation, but refutation, and yes, you can refute a false induction given an observation that contradicts it. But you cannot prove a positive induction, no matter the evidence. I forget what we were arguing about. Please go ahead and have the last word and thanks for the exchange.
    - pxc 4y ago
      I was just pet peevin' about a phrase that I think is unfortunate because it itself is very misleading and often gets used in place of or alongside much clearer, better arguments. :) But I'm tired of it, too, by now. Thanks for your engagement as well, even though I took us on a detour!
      - DrewADesign 4y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedant