Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The first one. You cant prove that earth is the only source for teapots in the universe (that, again, would be proving a negative).
Also the second. You cant prove that there never was a secret nasa mission to shoot a tea pot towards jupiter.
Wrong again.
Never heard of substitute teachers?
Its not enough for the form to work if it relies on unprovable premises. It just shoves the dispute up or down a level.Do you not believe that modus tollens proves a negative?
You dont really know what a proof is, do you?The proof consists in the logical validity of the conclusion. If we assume that (1) and (2) are true, then (3) is necessary and a negative statement is thereby proven.
Its not enough for the form to work if it relies on unprovable premises. It just shoves the dispute up or down a level.
The unicorn example illustrates this perfectly. But the author thinks its "not reasonable" that I take issue at another level because, if I do, then we can argue premises all the way down endlessly to absurdity!
Sorry, thats not going to erase from my mind the fact that we discover new fossil species regularly,
You still have to produce a single valid example.I don't think you understand the idea of modus tollens. Have you ever taken a logic course? I'm demonstrating that a negative statement can be proven by deriving it from two facts that we already know or accept. Of course if those propositions are not true, then the conclusion is unsound. But that's not the point of the exercise. The point is to show that it is logically possible to prove a negative statement.
You dont really know what a proof is, do you?
You still have to produce a single valid example.
You still have to produce a single valid example.
In your example we dont know that statement 1 is true. its just stipulated. Maybe staffing decisions changed without our knowing.That's fine. That just goes to show that we may not be able to prove every negative statement. But the subject of the OP is whether or not any negative statement can be proven. If we know that premises (1) and (2) are true for a given modus tollens argument, then we also know that conclusion (3) - which is a negative statement - is true.
In your example we dont know that statement 1 is true. its just stipulated. Maybe staffing decisions changed without our knowing.
I'm not sure that modus tollens can prove prove a negative without granting some unprovable premises.
Not my job to prove the unprovable for you.Maybe if would help if you could provide an "If A then B" proposition that you accept. Do you believe that there is a necessary relationship between any two things in the world?
You said you had no opinion concerning them. I assume that means that you neither accept nor reject them. Did you mean something different?
Logical proofs are possible, necessary, and quite compelling. If A then B. A. Therefore B. That's a logical proof. So long as premises A and B obtain, conclusion C is necessary.
No. But proof has to do with persuasion and acceptance. Proof matters because it actually has an affect on how people think and live.
Not my job to prove the unprovable for you.
No, that's what I mean. I was assuming that you meant that I couldn't be convinced of your premises.
Formal logic is more akin to math. Aristotle doesn't seem to consider it part of Philosophy. He thought of it more as a tool that Philosophy uses.
And in your example we're not talking about formal logic.
You were talking about accepting premises. That's not proof.
Ha Ha.Here's one that you all might find more persuasive:
1. If proofs exist for negative statements, then such proofs will be universally persuasive.
2. No proofs are universally persuasive.
3. Therefore no proofs exist for negative statements.
Ha Ha.
But, your honor, "universally persuasive" goes to the state of mind every single being. I personally know one or two who think some very true things are false.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?