Re: OT: Once again Inez delves into the murky waters of philosophy.
- From: hhyapster@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:23:20 -0800 (PST)
On Dec 19, 2:42 pm, j.wilki...@xxxxxxxxx (John Wilkins) wrote:
Inez <savagemouse...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On another thread there has been a bit of a discussion about "proving
an negative," and it's got me thinking. It is often said on this
newsgroup that you can't prove a negative. However, it's clear that
in some cases you can.
For example, I may not be able to prove that there's no such thing as
a three-eyed Barbie doll anywhere in the world, but I can't prove that
there isn't one under my bed.
So what is the real long hand version of this? You can't prove a
universal negative, or something like that?
You *can* prove a negative if you can list (enumerate) all the items
under discussion. You only can't prove a negative if the domain is
infinite or indefinitely large.
Suppose I say "There are no red balls in that bag". I can prove the
negative by taking all the balls out and classifying them under colours.
If the red basket is empty, I have proven it.
Suppose I say "There are no humans elsewhere in the universe". Since we
have no access to the universe in general, that is practically
unproveable.
In traditional logic, this is called modus tollens and it has the form
"If P then Q; Not-Q, therefore Not-P". If not-Q is true, that is, if Q
is false, then you have shown Not-P is true, or P is false.
But if the domain in which Q may occur is too big, or unexplorable, then
you cannot prove that Not-P. In ordinary induction, in which we try to
generalise from observed cases, no number of not-Qs is enough to show
that all items are not-Q if the "bag" is too big or we cannot open it.
The classical example is "No swans are not-white" (= "All swans are
white"). Suppose we assert this in 1500. Each observed swan is white,
and hence the negation is not proven. Does this mean all swans are
white? No, because swans in West Australia are black. But in 1500 they
hadn't been observed, so even though the claim was shown to be false
later, and was false when stated, it could not be proven to be false at
the time.
Hope this helps.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Yes, absolutely.
This is exactly what Apo was using, since he said god was all around
you. He knew exactly its not provable, in the eyes of science.
However, he did not realize that neither could he, especially when his
god had never shown up before, now or in future.
He does not even know there is no such thing as a god.
He relied upon bible which was proven false in all its stories but I
think he do recoginize some of them to be lies (but did not want to
admit).
Its easy for him to communicate with emails(one can evade or snip),
but face to face, he has nowhere to hide, just like Dumski in the
Dover case.
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: Coronary bypass.
- Next by Date: Re: OT: Once again Inez delves into the murky waters of philosophy.
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: Once again Inez delves into the murky waters of philosophy.
- Next by thread: Re: OT: Once again Inez delves into the murky waters of philosophy.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
