Saturday, November 21, 2009

James Randi: You Can't Prove a Negative

James Randi from a few years ago

 

YouTube link (if you can’t see the embedded video)



(From JREF)

Posted by AlexF at 11/21/2009 09:07:00 PM

Labels: , , ,

2 comments:

  1. Anonymous7:12 AM EST

    Actually, you can prove negatives:

    http://skeptic.org.uk/news/2009/1815

    ReplyDelete
  2. AlexF8:16 AM EST

    Nice one, but a little too tricky on semantics if you ask me.

    From the article:
    1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence in the fossil record.
    2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record.
    3. Therefore, unicorns never existed.

    Someone might object that that was a bit too fast - after all, I didn’t prove that the two premises were true. I just asserted that they were true. Well, that’s right. However, it would be a grievous mistake to insist that someone prove all the premises of any argument they might give. Here’s why. The only way to prove, say, that there is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record, is by giving an argument to that conclusion. Of course one would then have to prove the premises of that argument by giving further arguments, and then prove the premises of those further arguments, ad infinitum.

    All is well and dandy with this but it still goes too far. As Randy contends you cannot prove conclusively that reindeers can't fly but you can come very close in the odds being humongously against it that for all practical purposes you can say they can't.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)