Grassblade wrote:
> "Proven" has been defined somewhere in this thread, and you didn't raise any
> objection to its definition.

I believe I did at one point, actually. I pointed out that 
"mathematically proven" is only "proven" if you do the math right.

> To prove a positive I only need to find one item with the required property.
> "Some grass is green". Easy as pie to prove. 

Harder than you think, actually. Grass *isn't* green. It looks green to 
you. "Green" is an interaction between you and the grass (and to some 
extent the light sources etc), not a property of the grass itself.

> To prove a negative I need to sort
> through the whole population: "There exists no grass that isn't green".

That's only one kind of negative, tho.

I understand the argument. It's simply flawed.

If you're talking about mathematics, it's easy to "prove" a negative: 
Halting Problem.

If you're talking about science, it's easy to "prove" a negative: there 
are no photons that move at other than the speed of light.

Either one of those could be wrong.

> Consequently no statistical proof of a negative is
> possible, in general ("in general" in the mathematical sense).

No, but it's a bogus argument to take someone who says something has 
been scientifically proven, and argue that it hasn't been mathematically 
proven. You're not making a point, you're changing definitions of words 
being used.

There are both mathematical and scientific/statistical proofs that the 
supernatural doesn't exist. They're not the same kind of proof, but 
they're both satisfying to me.

>>>> I have a great deal of faith that the impossible won't happen.
>>> I guess that begs the question: define "impossible".
>> Define "proof" first. Or God. Or Faith. Why am I the first person who
>> has to nail down exactly what I mean by everyday words?
> Tsk, I asked first. ;-) 

I'll grant you that "the impossible won't happen" is pretty 
tautological. However, that's kind of the point. If you want to prove 
the supernatural is real, breaking tautologies is a good way to do it.

> Besides, it ties in with the proof-of-negative, since I suppose you prove
> "impossible" by negation of what is "possible". Since you claim you can prove
> it, be my guest.

You said it's impossible to prove *any* negative, right? Not just "there 
are negatives that are impossible to prove" (which I agree with), but 
"it's impossible to prove a negative". That latter statement is the same 
as "there are no negatives it is possible to prove."

Guess what? "There are no negatives that it's possible to prove" is a 
negative. Think about it.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message