Have we discovered how to prove a negative and I missed it? Or do we still have to look at the balance of evidence? In other words: in most justice systems, th

Have we discovered how to prove a negative and I missed it? Or do we still have to look at the balance of evidence? In other words: in most justice systems, the prosecution must produce evidence of guilt, they hold the burden. It's also very important to know that (in the US justice system), evidence of innocence is not persuasive to appellate courts; they are looking for abuse of process. --- Now, cognition is a different matter altogether. When something terrible has happened, the human mind looks for the cause, specifically for the person who caused the terrible event. Sometimes, there is a person who did a crime - when someone is shot, that is generally treated as a crime. But sometimes sick people die. Sometimes infants fail to continue breathing. Sometimes wildfires burn a town and kill people. Sometimes viruses jump from (non human) animals to humans. In other words, in human cognition, satisfaction is more important than truth. Scientific truth is a framework whereby we delay our satisfaction with an answer, using specific tools that are socially accepted in that field of study.