What does the phrase “you can’t prove a negative” actually mean?
In: 1149
Basically, it’s harder to prove that something Doesn’t exist, because the evidence that it doesn’t exist, doesn’t exist.
You would instead have to show every possible scenario where it could possibly exist and show that it isn’t there.
Also worth noting it is pretty hard to disprove a negative. Like if someone says something negative about you that is a lie, it’s an uphill battle for you. For example, Guy A tells Guy B that I stole their watch. Guy B comes up to me to confront me. I tell him I didnt which is the truth, but because Guy B believes Guy A, now I have to try and prove it to Guy B. I can turn my house upside down to prove it, but Guy B will think it’s somewhere else. Now I come across as super defensive which can be seen as a defense mechanism that people see as a tell for a lie.
Maybe I’m wrong and can’t articulate it properly, but it’s usually a tough spot when you’re in a situation like that.
You can “what if” a negative statement forever. It’s an endless hole and you’ll never hit solid proof.
*”Prove there isn’t a unicorn in my backyard.”*
“Well, I just looked and there isn’t one.”
*”What if it’s invisible?”*
“Well, I checked with a heat sensor and there’s nothing there giving off warmth.”
*”What if unicorns don’t show up on heat sensors?”*
…etc. Then consider it the other way around, where you’re trying to prove a positive:
“Prove there **is** a unicorn in your backyard.”
“*Uhhhhhhhh…I can’t.”*
It’s a matter of placing burden of proof.
You can’t prove there is no teapot on orbit around Mars. If I claim there is, how will you prove me wrong?
Well, you don’t have to, me claiming such would be ridiculous and it would be me who would have to be proving things, not you. Until I do my claims have no merit and can be disregarded as baseless.
Same thing if I claim I have a invisible dragon in my living room. You don’t have to prove that I don’t, it’s up to me to prove what I claim to be true is not complete nonsense.
To prove something doesn’t exist you need to know everything there possibly is to know about the universe, which is impossible.
If I have a warehouse the size of Texas full of white balls and 1 black ball, you can easily prove that there are white balls in there by… opening your eyes. You can’t prove there are no black balls unless you know the color of every single ball (either because I told you, or you physically checked all 90 billion balls).
Proving a positive requires knowing the positive thing
Proving a negative requires you to know EVERYTHING.
It’s like the Devil’s Proof. You can’t prove that witches or magic or ten tons of gold doesn’t exist somewhere on an island.
This reminds me of the South Park episode featuring the history channel.
> of all the journals we researched about the early pilgrims, not one entry mentions aliens not being there
If you ask me if a white swan exists, I can walk you down to a local pond and show you one. That’s proving a positive.
If you ask me if a purple swan exists, I can check every single pond in the world and not find one, but that’s still not definitive proof that it doesn’t exist. What if it was just hiding in the trees? What if it existed years ago and has gone extinct? What if it’s on another planet? What if it burrows into the ground when it hears people approaching? What if white swans turn purple at a certain time of year? What if they only come out during the light of the 3rd blue moon of the century? In order to fully prove the negative I have to rule out an infinite number of possibilities, which is an unachievable task. You can always propose some new, niche potential that leaves a small chance of the purple swan existing.
It’s only applicable in a scientific sense. The concept has to be tangible. The typical phrase “prove Bigfoot doesn’t exist” is unprovable.
However intangible concepts can be proven through a negative. Otherwise no one could argue they “didnt” commit a crime.
There are various versions of this, but its in essence the idea that the burden of proof is on someone making a claim because proving a negative is immensely hard, or with enough qualifiers impossible.
Most examples are in regards to religion saying there is an all powerful all knowing god that you just cant see or prove, so you have to prove its not there.
In science its also a requirement that something has to be disprovable to even be worthy of considering using the scientific method to try and prove it.
One simple example is that we are talking and i tell you that there is an elephant in your garage, you say no there is no elephant, and i say “prove there isnt”, you can show me your garage and say there isnt an elephant because we cant see it, i say “ah its invisible”, you say even if its invisible we cant smell it, and i say “ah it doesnt have a smell”, you then walk to where i say there is an elephant and you say there is no elephant because you cant touch it and i say “ah its immaterial and cant be touched”
I am now asking you to prove that there isnt an invisible, no smell intangible elephant in your garage, i am providing no evidence for its existence and i have created a scenario its literally impossible to prove it doesnt exist, so does that mean it does? of course not.
Thats what they mean by saying you cant prove a negative, and that the burden of proof is on the person making a claim, because if we swapped it i wouldnt be able to prove there is an elephant like that, so we can dismiss it as non existent.
Latest Answers