Science, Religion, and the Surrounding Confusion.

regular.joe · 08-04-2008, 04:34 AM

I'm not confusing anything. I know what a logical proof is. I know what empirical analysis is. The statement "you can't prove a negative", is simply not a true statement. Of course inductive reasoning is useful, we all use it everyday. To use the statement "you can't prove a negative" in place of the use of inductive logic is really not working for me.

Troubleshooter · 08-04-2008, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by regular.joe

I'm not confusing anything. I know what a logical proof is. I know what empirical analysis is. The statement "you can't prove a negative", is simply not a true statement. Of course inductive reasoning is useful, we all use it everyday. To use the statement "you can't prove a negative" in place of the use of inductive logic is really not working for me.

To be more specific then, you can not have empirical evidence for a quantitative value less than zero. There can only be zero, a lack, or not zero, a value greater than zero.

08-04-2008, 04:34 AM	#1
regular.joe Старый сержант Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: NC, dreaming of large Russian women. Posts: 1,464	I'm not confusing anything. I know what a logical proof is. I know what empirical analysis is. The statement "you can't prove a negative", is simply not a true statement. Of course inductive reasoning is useful, we all use it everyday. To use the statement "you can't prove a negative" in place of the use of inductive logic is really not working for me. __________________ Birth, wealth, and position are valueless during wartime. Man is only judged by his character --Soldier's Testament. Death, like birth, is a secret of Nature. - Marcus Aurelius.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)