Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> > I might go as far as saying "This drug has not been proven to cause
> > cancer", but I don't know that "This drug does not cause cancer" is
> > something that would not be disproven over time.
>
> We're speaking scientific proof here, which is always open to revision.
> You can certainly prove that to a statistical degree, certain things
> don't have certain properties.
Ah, the magic of statistics. :-D If it's statistically proven, then you can be
confident it isn't proven.
>
> > In a purely logical sense,
>
> Sure. And in a purely logical sense, you can prove a negative also.
> There exists no integer X such that X = X + 1. Easy to prove. Axiomatic,
> almost. Or, for example, the halting problem describes a
> universally-quantified negative that can be proven.
>
You seem to be a knowledgeable fellow, surely you know that in logic the
conclusion is already present in the premises. You can't compare that to
empirical validation, which typically resorts to statistics and therefore makes
for a qualitatively different statement. In statistics you give up certainty to
get (possibly) greater insight through inference. It makes no sense to claim
that you can prove a negative with statistics.

<snipped>

> > and it's that faith in the impossible not happening
> > that provides them with the comfort of their beliefs.
>
> I have a great deal of faith that the impossible won't happen.
I guess that begs the question: define "impossible".

Post a reply to this message