Are you an atheist? (5 Viewers)

[Frothingslosh]

Libre, if you get picky enough, there's not a single thing in existence that can be proven beyond all theoretical possibility of error, even if you have to go so far as to start including situations where the universe spontaneously rewrite the rules of reality in order to falsify readings.

There is a point where you have to stop going 'what if' and instead PROVE that the measurements were wrong. In the case of my rolling balls, the answer to 'the tapes might have been faked' is 'prove it'. Theoreticals do not disprove anything.

 

[Frothingslosh]

To expand on that, 'videos can possibly be altered' isn't even a successful defense in a court of law, and that's a FAR lower standard than is accepted in scientific circles. Even in court, you need to PROVE that the video was faked instead of dismissing it because a possibility exists.

Refusing to accept a proof of a negative on the basis that it's conceivably possible I faked my documentation is no part of science, and it certainly doesn't disprove the ability to prove a negative under tightly constrained situations. Your argument that it is categorically impossible to prove a negative must be accompanied by PROOF. Doc and I have both provided perfectly acceptable situations wherein a negative can be proven, and your argument each time has relied on 'might haves' or 'could haves'. The ball 'might have' bounced out of the bucket too deep for it to bounce out of and into the other one, or I 'might have' lied and faked the video, or I 'might have' done this, that, or the other thing.

The point in my thought experiment was quite simple: I can prove there are no balls in bucket A by showing all the balls are in bucket B. These aren't photons or Schroedinger's Ball; they've been observed and CANNOT be in both buckets at once. Bringing up vague possibilities that they may have bounced when I explicitly said they didn't, or that I may have lied is avoiding the point: if every ball is in bucket B, then none of them can POSSIBLY be in bucket A, thus proving the negative assertion that no balls are in bucket A.

Also, please note that in order to prove that it is categorically impossible to prove a negative under any circumstances, you will need to prove a negative.

 

[Libre]

I will agree that in a thought experiment where there are only 2 possible outcomes and they are mutually exclusive, and you prove one of the outcomes, you have automatically disproved the other outcome.
We know balls run down ramps, and that they don't dematerialize from one bucket and reappear in another one.

If there is a jar of gumballs, there are either an even or an odd number of gumballs. Prove that there are an even number and at the same time you are proving that there is NOT an odd number. So as long as we're not in the real world, so long as we're dealing with thought experiments, where the initial conditions and outcome are to be taken at face value and can't be questioned, then you can prove negatives or positives or anything you set out to prove.

In your example, you can prove your balls went to the right (no personal comment intended) so they could not have gone to the left - but it is better to demonstrate the existence of something than the non-existence. I'm not re-writing the rules of the universe. In a court of law (you brought it up) it is not up to the defendant to prove he did NOT commit a crime - as we all know. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove he DID commit the crime for the reasons I've been advancing.

 

[Frothingslosh]

However, once the evidence has been presented, the defense has to prove that there is a REASONABLE doubt, not that there is a once in a millenium one-chance-in-thirty-trillion possibility that that evidence was incorrect. 'Beyond a reasonable doubt' is not the same as 'beyond even the slightest possibility of error'.

At least, not unless the defendant is named Orenthal.

And my thought experiment was precisely that simple: I roll twelve balls into one of two buckets. I can prove that none are in one bucket by showing that they are all in another. Negative assertion proved. Hell, if I were in NYC or you in Flint, I'd do it in person right in front of you and challenge you to prove me wrong.

 

[Libre]

However, once the evidence has been presented, the defense has to prove that there is a REASONABLE doubt, not that there is a once in a millenium one-chance-in-thirty-trillion possibility that that evidence was incorrect. 'Beyond a reasonable doubt' is not the same as 'beyond even the slightest possibility of error'.

Right - just as 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is not the same thing as 'beyond any doubt' which is the definition of proof.

.
At least, not unless the defendant is named Orenthal.

Exactly.
Prosecution never proved their case.
I guess you would accept their argument "Who else COULD have done it?" as proof that OJ did do it.
Proof means something different to me than you, I gather.
It means that any other explanation, no matter how improbable, has been shown to be not merely improbable but impossible.
Otherwise we just have an idea we know what's going on but there is no proof.

And my thought experiment was precisely that simple: I roll twelve balls into one of two buckets. I can prove that none are in one bucket by showing that they are all in another. Negative assertion proved. Hell, if I were in NYC or you in Flint, I'd do it in person right in front of you and challenge you to prove me wrong.

You proved a negative only by proving (or disproving) a mutually exclusive positive. They are much the same thing. In that case a negative can be proved. Its like the odd or even gumballs. If one is NOT the case than the other MUST be the case. This is just a logical exercise - it has nothing to do with real experimental design. We've strayed a long way from the path of inquiry and enlightenment. We can argue about this until all the angels do NOT fit on the head of a pin.

Merry Christmas.

 

[Frothingslosh]

If you use 'error must be utterly impossible' as your bar for the legal system, it's time to disband it, because there is ALWAYS the possibility for error.

They found her blood all over his clothes and vehicle. It was straight-up DNA tested and confirmed as hers. The defense forced the expert into saying that the DNA test was accurate to within 1 in six BILLION, and convinced the jurors that that was an unacceptably large margin of error. Note: the population of Earth at that time was six billion, and he was pointing out that the DNA literally MUST have been hers.

Hell, proof beyond all possible doubt means all the defense has to do is say 'He might be lying', and there goes the case, every single time, regardless of any other evidence.

It is simply an unusable threshold.

 

[Libre]

I agree with you there - proof for the legal system is a far cry from proof for a mathematician or a scientist.

 

[Rabbie]

However, once the evidence has been presented, the defense has to prove that there is a REASONABLE doubt, not that there is a once in a millenium one-chance-in-thirty-trillion possibility that that evidence was incorrect. 'Beyond a reasonable doubt' is not the same as 'beyond even the slightest possibility of error'.

The burden of proof is (or should be) on the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt beyond all REASONABLE doubt. This is certainly the case in both England and Scotland (they have slightly different systems). The defence do not have to prove anything - they just have to expose any flaws in the prosecution case

 

[Frothingslosh]

Which is precisely what I just said.

 

[Rabbie]

Which is precisely what I just said.

You actually said it was for the defence to prove there is reasonable doubt when in fact the onus of proof is on the prosecution. That was the point I was making. Finding flaws in the prosecution's case is not the same as proving the evidence is incorrect. You only need to show that there is reasonable doubt.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

You only need to show that there is reasonable doubt.

Ah, Rabbie, if only that were the standard we used for religion...

But unfortunately the more - how shall I say this? - intransigently zealous members of the forum won't accept that line of thought. Oh, well.

In case I don't get to post any more in this area, I wish to all of you a happy holiday in whatever form you choose to observe it. Even the non-religious folks of the world can use Christmas as an excuse to be with family for happy reasons and that is a good thing.

 

[Libre]

I think we all agree that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. It's one of the things about law and civics that we learn very early on.
BUT
The word "PROOF" has its own meaning in court, quite different from actual, real, uncontestable PROOF.
There is no PROOF in court.
As Rabbie, Frothy, Doc Man, and myself all agree, you could never convict anyone it there were a scintilla of doubt - or unreasonable doubt - which would nearly always exist to some degree.
Courts are designed to make decisions arising out of disputes among people or convict transgressors of opaquely worded laws that have may been broken - never a precise set of circumstances. So there is no perfection there - only reasonable and unreasonable doubt. And that opens a huge can of worms.
What is reasonable to person A is unreasonable to persons B, C, and D. That's why we can have hung juries, mistrials, or in some cases, faulty verdicts.

Now, getting back to my arguments about proving negatives, I've decided after careful thought - to reject Frothy's example of the balls and ramps. It's not that I'm just a stubborn ass (although I wouldn't argue that point) but the more I think about the balls and ramps, the more it does NOT really represent proving a negative. It is simply (and I did point this out already) a logical equivalent arising from the mutual exclusivity of only two options. Balls are on the left or on the right - there is no bouncing out, no hidden secret balls up anyone's sleeve, no deception of any sort. So you are proving a negative (no balls on left) only by proving the positive (all balls on right).

This is like proving a man is NOT dead (a negative) only by proving he is in fact alive. Or, glass is half full = glass is half empty.

I do not accept these logical equivalents as in fact proving negatives.

As far as Doc Man's "exhaustive search in restricted domains" - well, my example of finding Mike in an auditorium was criticized and found faulty. So let's have an example that's not faulty - in which a negative is proved and not merely by proving its logically equivalent positive.

Ho hummm. Slow here at work. Christmas eve after all. And 70 degrees outside!

 

[Frothingslosh]

Libre, you can't reject logic simply because you don't like the conclusions it leads you to.

I can prove "there are no baseballs in that bucket" simply by showing you that that bucket is empty.

Negative proven.

And earlier you were specifically stating that 'proof' means 'beyond all possibility of even the most unlikely possibility of error'. That is an unattainable standard, if for no reason than the Uncertainty Principle. There's a reason experiments and proofs always include a standard deviation or margin of error.

And man, now I regret bringing up the legal comparison at all, especially as I appear to have confused the hell out of Rabbie thanks to poor phrasing.

Back on the Doc's original topic, it does occur to me that the EW drive might actually overthrow established scientific principles, seeing as it pretty blatantly ignores the law of conservation of momentum. It's still to early to call, but every experiment so far has confirmed that it actually works...somehow.

 

[Libre]

Libre, you can't reject logic simply because you don't like the conclusions it leads you to.

I can prove "there are no baseballs in that bucket" simply by showing you that that bucket is empty.

Negative proven.

Not quite. For a number of reasons.
One, I'm not rejecting logic because I don't like the conclusions. I'm rejecting it because in this case it's being used as a slight of hand, without furthering our knowledge in any way. If the balls are not in the bucket, it's an inescapable consequence of the balls being elsewhere. If this logic were acceptable, then pretty much ANY negative proposition can be proven by negating the positive. And if that's all you're saying, then I agree.

But, to say you've proven that there are no baseballs in the bucket by showing me the bucket is empty is another futile attempt to prove something. Not seeing something has long been discounted as proof that the something doesn't exist. There are a great many things not seen but they still exist. The bucket is far from empty first of all - it's full of air (and air that I can't see) but beyond that, simply not detecting something does not prove it doesn't exist. Radio waves. Quarks. Distant galaxies. I realize that with balls and buckets you'd want to say if they were there you'd see them, and you're right. If there were an elephant in the room I'd see it. It's just that proof of nonexistence requires more than not seeing. It would be easy to arrange the balls and buckets to give a wrong impression (if you wanted to deceive), and even if you were earnest.

All this is why my position is that negatives cannot be proven - except that because of your example, I have to amend that to, cannot be proven except by proving/disproving the opposite positive.

I'm pretty patient if you want to take this any further but frankly, I don't have much more to add. We're both reasonably intelligent and thoughtful types, I think we pretty much understand where we stand on this issue. Glad to continue but just as glad to shrug shoulders and go back to arguing with the bible thumpers - not that that will cause any minds to change, either.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Sophistry, Libre.

You are wrong, and dancing around words and taking meanings that very obviously aren't what was meant doesn't change that.

The statement was 'there are no baseballs in the bucket'.

I show you the bucket, which, lo and behold, contains no baseballs. Sorry if I was confusing by saying 'empty', it never occurred to me that you would go "BUT AIR" and use that to argue that there are invisible baseballs in the bucket.

This is a very simple example. Statement: There are no baseballs in the bucket. Proof: Bucket is shown to contain no baseballs.

It doesn't matter that baseballs exist elsewhere. I did not, in fact, provide any evidence of where the baseballs are, because that is irrelevant insofar as there are none in that bucket. There is no 'positive', as you are redefining it, in the proof being provided.

I said there were no baseballs in the bucket, then showed that the bucket, in fact, contained no baseballs, and was, in fact, by any actually-used standard, empty. Also, note that except when air is actually a factor, scientists do not refer to air-filled flasks, beakers, and other containers, either. Petri dish contents will mention gel, nutrient, and the fungus or whatever, but the air goes unsaid because it's irrelevant. When I was studying chemistry in college, my professor referred to empty gear, not air-filled gear, nor was I expected to refer to the volume of air in my containers when I wrote up my experiment results, save when air actually WAS a factor.

Unless you can prove that someone has created invisible, weightless, massless baseballs, your argument that 'not seeing any baseballs in the empty bucket is not proof that there are no baseballs in it' is sheer stubbornness, and is in fact reaching the point of being a logical fallacy.

There is no sleight of hand here. An empty bucket is absolute proof that said bucket contains no baseballs.

As to proving a negative by proving/disproving something else, that's been a basic part of logic since Greek days. Hell, have you ever done a logic puzzle? Probably 3/4 of the work involved is proving what what relationships are PRECLUDED based on other data. You MUST be able to infer what something cannot be based on the state of something else. Sometimes the solutions can only be reached by reasoning like "If Matt has the dog, and we know the dog lives in the green house, then that means Jason MUST live in the red house, but I know Jason drives the Maserati, and if the Maserati is at the red house, then the Fiat must be in the yellow house, leaving no place for the Jaguar. Therefore, Matt cannot own the dog and Jason must live in the red house."

Yeah, I like logic puzzles.

No one's arguing that negatives are difficult to prove, nor that they dont require strictly controlled situations in order for that to be done, but the fact is that it IS possible given the right circumstances, as, in fact, the people in this very forum (either Doc or one of the mods) showed me right here a year or two ago.

And you know me, Don Quixote incarnate. What this topic really needs is something new to argue oveOOOOOOO PRETTY LIGHT

 

[Libre]

I didn't notice when you changed your example from yesterday, when the "proof" consisted of 12 balls, 2 ramps, and 2 buckets.
Now it's just zero balls and one bucket.
I'm dancing around?
So to you, being shown something is proof.
For me, it is far from proof.
Do I get to examine the bucket or are you going to just hold it up and show it to me?
And from what distance?
No - I'm skeptical. I don't buy it.
You can't prove anything to me that way.
We're using proof (or we have been) not in the ordinary sense of proof (which is really anything but) but in the sense that the science text books will be rewritten and the new knowledge becomes part of the human consciousness. You example just does not fill the bill.

 

[Frothingslosh]

I simplified the example to remove any possible extraneous issue once you argued 'bouncing'.

An empty bucket is proof all on its own that it contains no baseballs.

I'm talking you and me, in the same room. I say that a bucket has no baseballs and immediately hand it to you. There are no invisible baseballs, no microscopic baseballs, no secret compartments, no mirrors, no hallucinations, no magic, no disintegrating baseballs, no intangible dark matter baseballs, no baseballs suddenly travelling to alternate universes, no photos/pictures/any other representation of baseballs, no objects with 'baseball' written on them, no dumping of baseballs, nothing. You can run any test you want, there are no baseballs in it, period.

It's a freaking empty bucket, and it is absolute logical proof of my negative statement that it contains no baseballs.

I know you don't like proven wrong; I get that. I *HATE* being proven wrong, but in this case, you are, just as I was on this very topic in this very forum just a year or so ago when I was arguing your position.

Edit: And man, I wish we lived closer to one another. This is what my friends and I consider perfect bar discussion!

 

[Libre]

Frothingslosh.
Have you ever been shown something that turned out to be not what it appeared?
Has it ever happened to you?
Have you ever seen a magician produce bouquets of flowers from their empty hand or the ace of spades plucked out of thin air?
I have many times. Many other times, where there was no intentional deception, I failed to see something that was obviously present, or did think I saw something that turned out not to really be there.
I can process information and rely on ordinary cues to tell me when a baseball is in a bucket or it isn't.
Is this a standard diameter baseball by the way?
Is it the standard color?
Could it be hidden?
Could the bucket have a false bottom?
Or is that impossible?
Sorry - I don't care how you change your example, or how often you say I'm changing the meaning of your words. I've been perfectly consistent in my argument. You have not convinced me even a smidgeon.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Libre, what you're doing is the equivalent of saying that there is a widespread voter fraud issue because in a sample set of 1 billion votes, there were 31 cases of fraud, or 0.0000031%.

Do you refuse to go through intersections because there is a tiny, tiny, tiny chance you missed someone blowing through the intersection at 80 mph?

Do you refuse to use a cell phone because it's theoretically possible for someone to have replaced its innards with a cunningly disguised charged capacitor and hidden taser?

Do you refuse to eat in restaurants because it's theoretically possible they are washing their dishes with cyanide?

How do you play your guitar, knowing that there's a possibility someone snuck into your apartment and coated it in contact poison?

Those are just as 'logical' as your attempts to prove that my empty bucket isn't actually an empty bucket.

 

[Libre]

Do you go flying through intersections without looking for pedestrians or other cars?
Do you drink from an unlabeled bottle of fluid because it appears to be milk?
I can function in the world, with only partial information.
Sometimes our assumptions bite us in the ass but we can't live our lives without uncertainties.
I trust my senses and I do not get paralyzed with uncertainty.
But we're talking about proof.
To me that means that all other explanations are - if not impossible, so exceedingly remote that they can be discounted.
You're taking it to mean that, the facts appear to support a conclusion so that conclusion is proved.
I don't need proof to function.
I need proof only to accept a proposition as incontestably true.