Arguing from negative proof

[4gold]

Several arguments are given in this forum from the position of negative proof:

[center]"God does not exist, because there is no proof of his existence."

"Evolution must be true, because there is no other theory that explains the evidence."

"Dark matter must exist, because there is no other way to explain the universe."[/center]

And then there are logical inferences we all make from the absence of evidence, or else we couldn't have arguments, such as:

[center]"Mathematics is consistent, even though its consistency cannot be proven."

"The scientific method is reliable, even though its reliability cannot be proven."

"The laws of logic are rational, even though its rationality cannot be proven."

"The rules of morality are the same for you and me, even though the rules cannot be agreed upon."[/center]

My questions are:

How convinced should we be by arguments made by negative evidence?

Is there any way, other than Bayesian inference, to interpret the validity of arguments made by negative evidence?

[ShadowRishi]

Several arguments are given in this forum from the position of negative proof:

[center]"God does not exist, because there is no proof of his existence."

"Evolution must be true, because there is no other theory that explains the evidence."

"Dark matter must exist, because there is no other way to explain the universe."[/center]

And then there are logical inferences we all make from the absence of evidence, or else we couldn't have arguments, such as:

[center]"Mathematics is consistent, even though its consistency cannot be proven."

"The scientific method is reliable, even though its reliability cannot be proven."

"The laws of logic are rational, even though its rationality cannot be proven."

"The rules of morality are the same for you and me, even though the rules cannot be agreed upon."[/center]

My questions are:

How convinced should we be by arguments made by negative evidence?

Is there any way, other than Bayesian inference, to interpret the validity of arguments made by negative evidence?

I wouldn't make any of those claims.

A. Mathematics consistency can be checked whenever you to arithmetic, algebra, or calculus.

B. Logic is an axiom, but logic is the only tool we're given to do anything.

C. Evolution, dark matter, et cetera are the theories that currently make the most sense. Evolution has tons of data backing it up (And thus that is why we accept it as true) and no known data saying why it cannot be. Dark matter is much less potent of an argument, because we simply don't know what's out there, but it is a reasonable theory that is consistent with everything else we know.

[4gold]

Whoever gave those arguments should be taken out and shot (it wasn't me was it? :nervious: )

We could say that (the existence of) God has a very low probability because the only evidence we have is inconclusive and is better understood as arising from other natural causes.

We could say that Evolution has a high probability of being true, because the theory explains the evidence, suggests a mechanism that's know to exist and can be modeled and shown to generate the appearance of intelligent design.

As for dark matter, it's never been in quite the same league. It mostly depends on supernova observations which are currently being re-evaluated according to this week's edition of New Scientist.

I would dare bet we have all made arguments from negative evidence before. I am not calling out any one person in particular.

You use probabilities in your response. Is Bayesian inference the only way to interpret negative evidence?

[4gold]

"god does not exist" is a reasonable position because there's no evidence that one does, and there's plenty of evidence that people make them up.

This is what I am posting about. You made an argument from negative evidence (God does not exist...because there's no evidence). You also made a separate argument from positive evidence (there's plenty of evidence that people make them up).

So my questions remain. I am not out in this post to prove/disprove God, Evolution, or Dark Matter, but rather to examine the negative evidence argument that people use to prove or disprove God, Evolution, or Dark Matter.

[4gold]

I wouldn't make any of those claims.

A. Mathematics consistency can be checked whenever you to arithmetic, algebra, or calculus.

B. Logic is an axiom, but logic is the only tool we're given to do anything.

I would hope you do make those claims, because mathematics cannot be proven to be consistent. We just have to assume it is. And the laws of logic must be applied, or else there's no reason to have an argument.

C. Evolution, dark matter, et cetera are the theories that currently make the most sense. Evolution has tons of data backing it up (And thus that is why we accept it as true) and no known data saying why it cannot be. Dark matter is much less potent of an argument, because we simply don't know what's out there, but it is a reasonable theory that is consistent with everything else we know.

I am not arguing whether these theories are valid or invalid. I am only examining the arguments used to defend them...such as your argument that "Evolution has...no known data saying why it cannot be".

Is this a valid argument to make? Why or why not?

[ShadowRishi]

I would hope you do make those claims, because mathematics cannot be proven to be consistent. We just have to assume it is. And the laws of logic must be applied, or else there's no reason to have an argument.

The thing is, when I count things, I'm proving math right empirically.

C. Evolution, dark matter, et cetera are the theories that currently make the most sense. Evolution has tons of data backing it up (And thus that is why we accept it as true) and no known data saying why it cannot be. Dark matter is much less potent of an argument, because we simply don't know what's out there, but it is a reasonable theory that is consistent with everything else we know.

I am not arguing whether these theories are valid or invalid. I am only examining the arguments used to defend them...such as your argument that "Evolution has...no known data saying why it cannot be".

Is this a valid argument to make? Why or why not?

It's not a valid argument to state that something it right because the other is wrong, unless we are dealing with a true dichotomy. Otherwise, this type of argument is a logical fallacy known as a fallacy of false dichotomy.

[QED]

Gravity cannot be shielded in any way. Intervening objects, whatever their make-up, have no effect whatsoever on the attraction between two separated objects. This means that no antigravity chamber can be built in the laboratory. Neither does gravity depend on the chemical composition of objects, but only on their mass, which we perceive as weight (the force of gravity on something is its weight — the greater the mass, the greater the force or weight.) Blocks composed of glass, lead, ice or even styrofoam, if they all have equal mass, will experience (and exert) identical gravitational forces. These are experimental findings, with no underlying theoretical explanation.

In many ways, gravity remains a profound mystery. Gravity provides a stunning example of the limits of current scientific knowledge.

Who's knowledge? You seem to be describing Newton's concept of gravity, something that was elucidated by Einstein's general theory of relativity a couple of centuries later. Einstein showed that matter and energy warps space-time so your notions about shielding are quite out of place and date.

[4gold]

The thing is, when I count things, I'm proving math right empirically.

But even counting does not prove math's consistency.

It's not a valid argument to state that something it right because the other is wrong, unless we are dealing with a true dichotomy. Otherwise, this type of argument is a logical fallacy known as a fallacy of false dichotomy.

I'm afraid I'm not following you here. Who is making the argument that something is right because the other is wrong? Me, you, or just in general?

[ShadowRishi]

But even counting does not prove math's consistency.

That's not really true. If I define things in such a way, then empirically do a test and get the same number, then math is correct.

I'm afraid I'm not following you here. Who is making the argument that something is right because the other is wrong? Me, you, or just in general?

I'm saying hypothetically.

[4gold]

That's not really true. If I define things in such a way, then empirically do a test and get the same number, then math is correct.

I fear we are talking past each other here. There is not a single mathematician in the world who will say that mathematic's consistency has ever been proven. I'm not sure where we are getting our wires crossed...

I'm saying hypothetically.

Hypothetically, if someone makes an argument from negative evidence, how does this create a false dichotomy? I'm afraid I'm still not following you on this one, I apologize.

[ShadowRishi]

I fear we are talking past each other here. There is not a single mathematician in the world who will say that mathematic's consistency has ever been proven. I'm not sure where we are getting our wires crossed...

Most everything has axiomatic (in math's case, definitions) properties to it. Once you get over the axiomatic labeling of quantities, then you can prove math via logic, if you accept logic as true. Math's definitions (Peano's axioms and the following definitions, theorems, and postulates) follows from logic, actually.

Hypothetically, if someone makes an argument from negative evidence, how does this create a false dichotomy? I'm afraid I'm still not following you on this one, I apologize.

Okay, say this:


There's no evidence against the Geocentric model of the universe (prior to 1500's). Therefore, the geocentric model must be true.

It creates a false dichotomy by saying that if there's no evidence against A then A is true and B is false.


Sorry, it gets a little bit more technical when you get to finer science (between two competing theories, for example).


So if you want a better example:

A. Evolution is true.
B. ID is true.

Since A is false, B is true. In this case, it's a stronger case where A is assumed to be false rather than just no evidence against B. Therefore, B must be true.

This is not valid; there are an infinite number of unexplored possible models, assuming premise A is false, therefore B has not been proven to be true yet.