Skeptic Project

Posted: Jan 19, 2011 - 19:58

(0)

Level: 5
CS Original

I'm gonna go stick my head in the oven.

#31

Posted: Jan 19, 2011 - 20:03

(0)

Level: 4
CS Original

So...it sounds like we're in agreement? I think?

#32

Posted: Jan 19, 2011 - 20:03

(0)

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

I agree. Ed is on drugs and Snob should stick his head in an oven.

#33

Posted: Jan 19, 2011 - 20:05

(0)

Level: 10
CS Original

domokato, if that's what you're saying then I guess so.

But PRACTICALLY it is true you can't prove a negative and its bad for an argument to allow someone to use it without telling them are being fallacious and pandering to their fallacious argument.

#34

Posted: Jan 19, 2011 - 20:11

(0)

Level: 4
CS Original

If by PRACTICALLY you mean TECHNICALLY (as in technically we can't prove anything), then yes, sounds like we're in agreement.

Also agreed on calling people out on it.

#35

Posted: Jan 19, 2011 - 20:19

(0)

Level: 10
CS Original

Well saying "technically we can't prove anything" starts getting into abstract notions, so no.

I mean if you say something like you can't prove 911 WASN'T an inside job, thats fallacious because you can't prove a negative.

Which goes back to the OP, its wrong.

#36

Posted: Jan 19, 2011 - 20:25

(0)

Level: 4
CS Original

Uh, it's not fallacious because you can't prove a negative; it's fallacious because not being able to disprove it doesn't make it true.

#37

Posted: Jan 19, 2011 - 20:27

(0)

Level: 10
CS Original

So HOW do you prove me wrong?

Can you prove there WASN'T a conspiracy in some way by the US government in the 911 attacks?

#38

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FtNm9CgA6U

Posted: Jan 19, 2011 - 20:51

(0)

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

#39

Posted: Jan 20, 2011 - 11:42

(0)

Level: 4
CS Original

I can prove (to a reasonable person) that 9/11 wasn't an inside job, like how you said earlier. If they reject my argument still, I can call into question their reasonability.

#40

Posted: Jan 20, 2011 - 12:09

(0)

Level: 10
CS Original

That is not what I asked though.

Can you prove there was no conspiracy in any way related in the 911 attacks by the US government?

You can't because to do so you need to know everything and be able to demonstrate everything to someone else.

Its the same thing as someone saying that god could have created a cell somewhere and challenging you to prove a god never created anything. You can't do it, even if you show evolution and abiogensis works to their satisfaction. You still can't prove a god didn't ever create a cell somewhere.

#41

Posted: Jan 20, 2011 - 12:38

(0)

Level: 4
CS Original

I thought we've been over this. You can't make the argument you're making unless you reject inductive reasoning or have an unreasonably high standard of evidence. It doesn't have anything to do with positive/negative. Unless you can explain to me what it is about a negative that makes it special in this regard?

#42

Posted: Jan 20, 2011 - 12:51

(0)

Level: 10
CS Original

Because I just gave you an example, you can't prove it wrong. Proving that an inside job is unlikely is not proving it wrong because you're dealing with facts and evidence FOR the idea that X exists or has happened, rather than dealing with HYPOTHETICAL evidence and facts that may exist somewhere.

--------------------------------

ARGUMENT: Prove there WAS NO conspiracy IN ANY WAY related in the 911 attacks by the US government.

You can't, therefore it is reasonable to believe US government conspired to carry out 911 somehow and that's why we need a new investigation.

ARGUMENT: Prove that a god NEVER created anything EVER.

You can't, therefore my belief a god exists and created is reasonable.

--------------------------------

All you can do say no, that is not a valid argument because you can't prove a negative. Why? Because it requires absolute 100% total knowledge about everything AND the ability to show that person you're arguing with.

Its a fallacious request because, as I said..... "it leads the argument to focus on the vastly improbable and the extremely unlikely RATHER THAN evidence and what good reasons we have to believe a thing to start with. "

If you go down that road evidence and reason are irrelevant. It doesn't matter how much you can demonstrate evolution and abiogenesis can happen and does happen. God could still have created something, you can't prove that wrong.

Science doesn't deal with the vastly improbable and the extremely unlikely it deals with what is probable. If you test someone's claimed psychic powers and they get results that show no more accuracy than what is expected by chance, how do you prove that none of those times WEREN'T using psychic powers in those instances? YOU CAN'T! The scientific response is that even if psychic powers existed from the evidence it is no more accurate than just guessing. You can't prove psychic powers DON'T exist, you can only show that its not probable and we have no reason to believe in them. I don't really understand why you can't see the difference.

#43

Posted: Jan 20, 2011 - 13:16

(0)

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

Pedantic shit.

#44

Posted: Jan 20, 2011 - 13:19

(0)

Level: 4
CS Original

--------------------------------

ARGUMENT: Prove there WAS NO conspiracy IN ANY WAY related in the 911 attacks by the US government?

You can't, therefore it is reasonable to believe US government conspired to carry out 911 somehow and that's why we need a new investigation.

ARGUMENT: Prove that a god NEVER created anything EVER.

You can't, therefore my belief a god exists and created is reasonable.

--------------------------------

All you can do say no, that is not a valid argument because you can't prove a negative. Why? Because it requires absolute 100% total knowledge about everything AND the ability to show that person you're arguing with.

But that's not the only thing you can do. Like I said, their logic is fallacious because they are justifying a belief in a claim based on an inability to disprove the claim despite having no credible evidence for the claim. If your argument is that they shouldn't believe the claim because you can't disprove the claim, your argument is fallacious also because not being able to disprove the claim has no bearing on whether or not one should believe it in the first place. To believe it, they need evidence for it. If they have no evidence for it, that should be reason enough to remain skeptical about it. No where do you have to disprove it.

Its a fallacious request because, as I said..... "it leads the argument to focus on the vastly improbable and the extremely unlikely RATHER THAN evidence and what good reasons we have to believe a thing to start with. "

I think I see where the disagreement is. My point is, it's not that you can't prove a negative. It's that you shouldn't have to in this situation. (And that you actually can prove a negative.)

#45

Posted: Jan 20, 2011 - 13:30

(0)

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

"My point is, it's not that you can't prove a negative. It's that you shouldn't have to in this situation."

Winner.

/thread

#46

Posted: Jan 20, 2011 - 13:55

(0)

Level: 10
CS Original

Well I've given examples, can you disprove them? No. Why not?

#47

Posted: Jan 20, 2011 - 16:21

(0)

Level: 4
CS Original

To a reasonable person, yes.

To an unreasonable person, maybe not.

Technically, no (due to uncertainty in everything).

Practically, yes.

But it doesn't matter. Are you just trying to justify your past use of the phrase? Cuz that's what it sounds like. Why not just be more clear from now on and say "just because something can't be disproven doesn't mean it's true".

If you are trying to sucker me into answering that yes I can disprove it, and then calling into question the reliability of my senses/evidence or the nature of reality, aren't you just proving that you can or should be able to disprove a negative, because in order to believe that you can't you would have to have impractical standards of evidence?

By the way, this could be another tactic for debating truthers - pointing out the discrepancy between their standards of evidence for their own beliefs and for your claims.

#48

Posted: Jan 20, 2011 - 20:54

(0)

Level: 10
CS Original

Im showing you a practical example of why its true that "you can't prove a negative".

If you think you can prove my examples wrong, have at it. The fact that you know you can't should tell you something. WHY can't you?

Saying...

++ I can prove that a god never created anything.

Is different to saying...

++ I can prove that it is very unlikely a god created anything.

So saying that you can prove to a reasonable person that the US in all likelihood did NOT have any involvement in a conspiracy involving 911 to their satisfaction - is not the question that has been asked and because you have not satisfied the challenge logically you fail. The point is it the argument is logically fallacious for asking you to prove a negative.

#49

Posted: Jan 20, 2011 - 20:58

(0)

Level: 4
CS Original

Okay. The government didn't do 9/11 because it has no motive to.

#50

Posted: Jan 20, 2011 - 21:02

(0)

Level: 10
CS Original

No motive you know of? Come on, you know better than this?

How does this PROVE no one in the US government had any involvement with 911, not even a little bit? You need a specific claim, without that you're left being told you have to know everything.

#51

Posted: Jan 20, 2011 - 21:03

(0)

Level: 5
CS Original

"Prove 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy" wouldn't be impossible, but pretty exhaustive.

If you somehow could get Dick Cheney, George W, Andrew Card, etc. in a room with a lie detector, you might be able to make some headway. But it's not something you could prove over the internet.

#52

Posted: Jan 20, 2011 - 21:04

(0)

Level: 10
CS Original

Lie detectors aren't admissible in courts and are known to be unreliable. Next.

#53

Posted: Jan 20, 2011 - 21:06

(0)

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

"No motive you know of? Come on, you know better than this?"

There was no motive.

Afghanistan was invaded first. Now, even if we were going to pretend that the United States benefited from the war in Iraq, which we haven't, I certainly can't think of any benefit from invading Afghanistan.

#54

Posted: Jan 20, 2011 - 21:10

(0)

Level: 10
CS Original

Yes... I get that Matt, lol.

What I am trying to show is that you can explain that there was no motive anyone an think of that makes any sense in the same way as you can show that abiogensis can happen and evolution happens thus negating any reason to claim god created anything. But that doesn't mean we can say that we've therefore proved that a god never created anything - we haven't.

This is why James Randi always says psychic powers could exist, its just from all the evidence he has seen he has no reason to believe in it.

#55

Posted: Jan 20, 2011 - 21:12

(0)

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

"So saying that you can prove to a reasonable person that the US in all likelihood did NOT have any involvement in a conspiracy involving 911 to their satisfaction"

Their satisfaction verges on religion. That's not proving a negative, that's proving an impossible. There's a difference.

#56

Posted: Jan 20, 2011 - 21:12

(0)

Level: 5
CS Original

"Lie detectors aren't admissible in courts and are known to be unreliable. Next."

Horse shit. I can only imagine you're talking about the old polygraph tests, and I would be inclined to agree if it weren't for the fact that we don't use those anymore.

Say hello to the MRI lie detectors: http://www.scienceline.org/2008/11/ask-intagliata-lie-detection-fmri-brain-scan/

#57

Posted: Jan 20, 2011 - 21:16

(0)

Level: 10
CS Original

Snob, from that link....

....And even if the test is reliable, experts question whether the results of this sort of mind reading should be admissible in court.

...But many neuroscientists and legal scholars say the evidence isn’t ready for the courtroom. Judy Illes, a neuroethicist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, calls the companies “premature” and says “I don’t think we have the scientific evidence yet to be selling fMRI for the kind of applications they are supporting. . . . It’s a tall order to be able to sell results.”

...If prosecutors try to get the results of fMRI lie detection tests admitted into court, they can expect a challenge based on the Constitution’s ban on self-incriminating testimony,

So 1. It still needs work and 2. It isn't admissible in court.

And you are of course missing the point. So long as their is some doubt SOMEWHERE, my argument wins because it isn't satisfied. But it doesn't really win, because its so fallacious to challenge someone to prove a negative.

#58

Posted: Jan 20, 2011 - 21:19

(0)

Level: 5
CS Original

No. You are.

Your point is that it's hard, if not impossible to prove a negative. I get it. All I said is that there are methods to which you can at least attempt to come close.

#59

Posted: Jan 20, 2011 - 21:22

(0)

Level: 10
CS Original

That is not at all "close", your own link disproved you. It isn't 100% accurate and the experts still had concerns and it isn't admissible in court, yet you claimed what I said was "horseshit". Still seems to say exactly what I said. I can reject it out of hand because there is doubt.

Your understanding is extremely weak if you think a simple lie detector test would ever get "close" to proving there WASN'T a conspiracy in SOME WAY by the US government in 911. What if it wasn't those people you tested? At best (which you would never be able to get to) is that you just proved those people weren't involved. You don't think big enough, you don't understand just how stupid the challenge is.

How would you prove god never created anything ever? You can't!

EDIT: In fact the Unicorn argument from the OP only proves itself BECAUSE it is circular.

#60