The explaination for X is not Y
Edit: Maybe this is a better way to say it: There is no way to reduce the chance that some variable might contribute to an event to zero. There is always a unknown probability that in the future, new evidence will be found that confirms the variable does indeed contribute to the event, even though there is no evidence at all currently.
Originally posted by inimalist
be my guest
I can also prove that you can't create a Heptagon with ruler and compass.
I can also prove that 4/7th is not a Natural Number.
And when I say "I can" I mean "I can google the proof".
Or are those not acceptable negatives?
Originally posted by inimalist
the first and third are more statements of axioms within the logical systemthe second is accurate, though are your truly arguing that it is and will forever be impossible to do such, or just very difficult and inefficent.
I am arguing that it will ever be so as it is mathematically proven. Of course the sceptic in me will always say (about negative as well as positive proof) "or maybe not".
As for the statements of axioms, that's always that way, just that in mathematics we know exactly what axioms we are dealing with. Personally I am of the opinion that if we did know the rules of this universe we could make absolute statements about it, but we don't and I believe we never can. So, it is not impossible to scientifically prove God does not exist, it's just pretty hard so that it seems impossible. For one, if you can prove that something CAN NOT exist then you have done the job. The problem is when you have to say "it could exist"...then you need another approach.
But the "you can't prove a negative" is a cop out and just not true. And I am pretty sure I know where it comes from too.
Originally posted by Bardock42As for the statements of axioms, that's always that way, just that in mathematics we know exactly what axioms we are dealing with. Personally I am of the opinion that if we did know the rules of this universe we could make absolute statements about it, but we don't and I believe we never can. So, it is not impossible to scientifically prove God does not exist, it's just pretty hard so that it seems impossible.
Well even if we "knew" the rules of the universe we would not know how things might happen given certain parameters all the time (which is why a lot of BS scientific logic occurred when the WTC towers fell during 9/11; this is why I mentioned intervals) and this would include other unforseen variables that may be missed on accident.
For the sake of argument, it should also be mentioned that if something does not exist one can not prove it does not exist.
Originally posted by chithappens
Well even if we "knew" the rules of the universe we would not know how things might happen given certain parameters all the time (which is why a lot of BS scientific logic occurred when the WTC towers fell during 9/11; this is why I mentioned intervals) and this would include other unforseen variables that may be missed on accident.
We might actually know how everything that happens. Depending on how those rules are, it's also possible, as you say, that we couldn't prove many things, but I don't really know why I should assume one scenario over the other.
Originally posted by chithappens
For the sake of argument, it should also be mentioned that [B]if something does not exist one can not prove it does not exist. [/B]
No, as I said, that can in many cases actually be sufficiently proven. The limitations we have in this universe apply to negative as well as positive proof...no idea why people like to focus on the only when something is phrased negatively.
Originally posted by Bardock42
We might actually know how everything that happens. Depending on how those rules are, it's also possible, as you say, that we couldn't prove many things, but I don't really know why I should assume one scenario over the other.
E = mc(squared) is currently being challenged. Not sure what the argument is but "laws" of science change every so often.
Originally posted by Bardock42No, as I said, that can in many cases actually be sufficiently proven. The limitations we have in this universe apply to negative as well as positive proof...no idea why people like to focus on the only when something is phrased negatively.
I wasn't focusing one idea or the other; I just happened to coin it that way. I'm simply saying that something like God could not be detected because God would not let himself be seen (according to some...).
Originally posted by chithappens
E = mc(squared) is currently being challenged. Not sure what the argument is but "laws" of science change every so often.That's odd. Are you unfamiliar with the difference between something that is proven and something that is a theory?
I wasn't focusing one idea or the other; I just happened to coin it that way. I'm simply saying that something like God could not be detected because God would not let himself be seen (according to some...).
Yes, something that is by definition unprovable can probably not be proven. But we were talking about something that does not exist not something that is so powerful it can hide from us.
There's two different things being discussed here, I am talking about logic in general in which something negative as you call it can be proven or disproven...you always go back to the general limitations of the human condition that we can never know anything for sure. Yes, if you want to play it that way, I can't even prove I exist myself...if you are interested to discuss the next step though, I am willing to do that, too.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I am arguing that it will ever be so as it is mathematically proven. Of course the sceptic in me will always say (about negative as well as positive proof) "or maybe not".As for the statements of axioms, that's always that way, just that in mathematics we know exactly what axioms we are dealing with. Personally I am of the opinion that if we did know the rules of this universe we could make absolute statements about it, but we don't and I believe we never can. So, it is not impossible to scientifically prove God does not exist, it's just pretty hard so that it seems impossible. For one, if you can prove that something CAN NOT exist then you have done the job. The problem is when you have to say "it could exist"...then you need another approach.
But the "you can't prove a negative" is a cop out and just not true. And I am pretty sure I know where it comes from too.
yes, if we knew everything about everything, we could make statements of what cannot exist, that is essentially what I am saying, qualified by the fact that the human mind is not capable of such knowledge nor is it capable of designing something that removes the subjective nature of our reality in its interpretation.
If we know every event that will ever happen in the future, then sure, one could proove a negative.
It certainly isn't a cop out. At the very least it makes people ask proper questions. The fact that God lovers have a single argument that actually is supported by science is not a reason to say it is BS. (in actuality, the statement comes from the philosophy of science and was probably picked up by religious people)
Originally posted by inimalist
yes, if we knew everything about everything, we could make statements of what cannot exist, that is essentially what I am saying, qualified by the fact that the human mind is not capable of such knowledge nor is it capable of designing something that removes the subjective nature of our reality in its interpretation.
Indeed, we are in agreement that that is what is being said partly-
Originally posted by inimalist
If we know every event that will ever happen in the future, then sure, one could proove a negative.
And a positive. But yes.
Originally posted by inimalist
It certainly isn't a cop out. At the very least it makes people ask proper questions. The fact that God lovers have a single argument that actually is supported by science is not a reason to say it is BS. (in actuality, the statement comes from the philosophy of science and was probably picked up by religious people)
Actually, it's not an argument that God Lovers use, it's one that atheists use. And it is a cop out. You can just block every negative phrased question with it without giving it a thought. That's how it is used nowadays.
The fact that you can actually prove a negative to the extent that you can prove a positive is also disregarded. It's just a way not to deal with an argument in a reasonable fashion (I don't mean that you do that, I am just saying that that's how it is used usually).
In conclusion, you can certainly mathematically prove a negative. You can prove a negative, just as you can prove a positive in our world, just that it is never 100%, because nothing here is.
no, what you can actually say is that given all available evidence you must conclude that there is not a 200 pound baby whale on top of your head.However, there is always the chance that new and better evidence may be found which actually confirms such.
There is something to be said for probability, but in actuality, one cannot prove a negative.
well yes, if situations exist which increase crime, gun crime will go up. So will crime using thousands of other means. Computer related crime is on the rise, should the owning of a computer be controlled for society's protection?
The facts remain that gun availability in a society is not related to violent crime in society.
I think the only thing that might support your argument is something called the "mere exposure effect". Some research shows that, in completely simulated environments, people will act in what is deemed an aggressive manner moreso in the presence of a fire arm than in the presence of sporting equipment. It is a controversial finding, but maybe if you argued something like "access to guns causes people who were going to be violent to do so with an object that potentially could harm more people" or "because people might own a gun, there is potential that they might behave more aggressively when it is around" it would be more solid. But I will point out specifically, the presence of a gun in the mere exposure effect does not increase "gun violence", just a lab measure of aggression. There is no mechanism by which simulated aggression can be linked to gun violence, meaning that even if people are more aggressive around guns, it is not proof that they will use them for a violent manner. In this interpretation, at very local levels, gun ownership migh raise domstic violence or non-gun related violence.
inimalist, the way you are talking, seems like you dont even have a problem with drug smugglers and distributers who are MERELY providing guns to armies etc in africa which are usually used for genocide and waging wars. after all, the argument they often cite is, "we dont force any1 to pull the trigger". but providing the MEANS to do such things is just as bad, and that is what guns ARE. the silent spectator who stands on the side, having the power to do sumthing while another man is killed is hardly any better to the man who has pulled the trigger.
scandanavian countries/canada, are countries with exceptionally different laws/values/social structures {the ones u have cited i think} and a much more idealised form of society{due to the more anarchical, as a WHOLE, way in which these socities function in all aspects and how well the money is handled by the country and how it is used almost sorely for services and almost never on stupid things like armed forces and waging wars or propaganda or neo colonialism etc etc etc} than the wrest of the world. perhaps if all societies and the american society was like that, maybe there wud be an argument for civilian arms ownership, but as things stand, those socities ARE what they are and that is a fact proven over and over again in school shootings, gang warfare, robbery, domestic violence, border control, the actions of civilians security firms as well as the american military in illegal wars and occupations and accidental fires and ENFORCING private property rights etc etc. currently there is NO reasonable argument for civilian arms ownership. it is stupid. people's tyrranic and violent impulses are too much to have HOPE for in the greater part of the world and further means to kill other shudnt be given to them.
think bout it, if sumday, sum device is invented which cud kill another human being without fail just by THINKING about them, wud you ALSO be for the public's right to own such a thing. or how about if a device is invented which can destroy the universe{or lets just take a simpler example considering mass produced nuclear warheads which are at some time, cheap enough for an average individual to own} would you also be for the publics right to OWN those arms??!?!?!?! please, its the same philosophy and not a huge ste from guns to anti tank rifles to rockets to nukes. civilians shudnt own arms, period. if self defence is really the argument people wanna use, then as i said, buy an air taser or the loads of other non lethal weapons which are PROVEN to be far more effective at stopping power{all that you need for self DEFENCE} than most 9mm or 45. handguns.
{point im making, you shud realise that most people who want such arms want them for MORE than just defence and hence arent SATISFIED with non lethal weapons}
Originally posted by Bardock42
In conclusion, you can certainly mathematically prove a negative. You can prove a negative, just as you can prove a positive in our world, just that it is never 100%, because nothing here is.
fair enough
although, I'd phrse "mathematically" as "within a complete system of logic" and qualify that there currently exists no system of logic that is an accurate representation of reality
but ya, can't ever prove something 100% either
Originally posted by backdoorman
I will admit I know nothing of the scientific aspect of this discussion but doesn't the "new and better evidence" argument work both ways? Can't there be some facts discovered that alter the veracity of an assertion made by an individual in the past, based on the evidence he had then?
it has to do with the concept of positive evidence. Basically, I can only ever provide evidence to say one theory is correct, and that evidence can't say that another theory is incorrect.
Its more a recognition that we can never say we know something with 100% certainty, it is also about the idea that evidence that supports one theory could always be made to fit another theory.
Its much less relevant here, I iirc, I addressed the negative anyway as if it were a positive.
Originally posted by backdoorman
No, it shouldn't.
well argued.
so, you said guns should be banned because as crime rises so will the instance of gun related crime. Its not my fault you made a dumb argument
by that line of logic, anything thats use in crime increases as crime rates increase is viable to be banned. I didn't say this, you did. and it is as silly as I made it sound.
Originally posted by backdoorman
Facts? You mean the Switzerland thing? Because it's just not.
I don't get what you are saying.
are you saying there aren't a lot of guns in switzerland or that there is a lot of violence there?
Originally posted by backdoorman
If X comes home one night drunk and finds his sister's boyfriend beating her up, he is more likely to shoot the boyfriend if he has a gun on the table next to him than if he didn't. Having no gun to shoot him with he would likely resort to either an attempted stabbing or beating him up, both of which I don't doubt have a mortality rate much lower than guns'.
LOL
omg, is your argument really that violence is ok, but gun violence, thats just terrible.
ha! its just too damned effective!
Originally posted by backdoorman
Yeah it's a stupid scenario which could have innumerable variables but I think similar cases could easily take place.
do you really think the problem in that situation is the gun?
Do you think things like that don't happen in switzerland? nobody beats their wife of cheats on their spouses?
There are 3 guns for every 10 people in Canada (9 for 10 in america). Legally registered guns that people own responsibly are almost NEVER used for murder in this way.
I get it, you don't like guns. boo hoo
Originally posted by leonheartmm
inimalist, the way you are talking, seems like you dont even have a problem with drug smugglers and distributers who are MERELY providing guns to armies etc in africa which are usually used for genocide and waging wars.
this seems like 2 points and I will answer them speratly, hopefully that is ok.
1) No, I have no problems with dealers, smugglers, and distributers of drugs. One can do all of these things without being violent, and the violence regarding the trade of drugs is almost 100% the fault of prohibition. Molson doesn't murder people who sell Budweiser, Barley growers don't cut their product because Sleeman's will take them to court over it.
2) Yes, people who break the law are almost by definition violent people, especially when getting into international arms dealing. I don't see where I have ever said that I support the black market of arms selling, and I would argue it exists only because of very poor governmental situations in those parts of the world. This is of course qualified by the fact that many western nations are up to their eyeballs in guns, yet have nowhere near as big a gun problem as the Americans do.
The similarity between America and unstable parts of the world are that there is a society wich values the irresponsible use of guns (let alone that a country at war is not comparable at all to america.
I guess also, I don't necessarily agree with the actions of African armies, but I always agree with the rights of a people to defend themselves. I can't just blanket say that supplying guns to armies is a bad thing.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
after all, the argument they often cite is, "we dont force any1 to pull the trigger". but providing the MEANS to do such things is just as bad, and that is what guns ARE.
thats proposterous. Even psychological studies find that the moral weights of inaction causing harm are less than action causing harm. The most repsonsible person is the one pulling the trigger.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
the silent spectator who stands on the side, having the power to do sumthing while another man is killed is hardly any better to the man who has pulled the trigger.
maybe not morally better, certainly less personally responsible
Originally posted by leonheartmm
scandanavian countries/canada, are countries with exceptionally different laws/values/social structures {the ones u have cited i think} and a much more idealised form of society{due to the more anarchical, as a WHOLE, way in which these socities function in all aspects and how well the money is handled by the country and how it is used almost sorely for services and almost never on stupid things like armed forces and waging wars or propaganda or neo colonialism etc etc etc} than the wrest of the world. perhaps if all societies and the american society was like that, maybe there wud be an argument for civilian arms ownership,
thats actually the argument I'm making. Instead of attacking guns, attack the policies and social conditions that lead to violence and let people keep their freedoms.
There is a middle ground to this one, people can both have guns and not be shot, thats what I'm saying.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
but as things stand, those socities ARE what they are and that is a fact proven over and over again in school shootings, gang warfare, robbery, domestic violence,
all of which are problems stemming from poor social conditions which will not be addressed with the prohibition of guns.
Even if these people couldn't get guns (there is no evidence that people who want to commit a crime can't get a gun, as the school shooting recently in Finland shows) they are still under the same social conditions that will cause them to be violent. Attacking guns does nothing to actually stop the problems that lead citizens to make these actions in the first place.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
border control, the actions of civilians security firms as well as the american military in illegal wars and occupations and accidental fires
these are state matters, ones which many americans would agree with. Gun control will have no effect on the way the state uses the guns it is allowed to have (or how security companies use the guns the state lets them have).
Originally posted by leonheartmm
and ENFORCING private property rights etc etc.
If a criminal comes onto my property and is threatening my family, I can blow him away.
There is no reason why people should not be able to kill those who are immediatly threatening them.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
currently there is NO reasonable argument for civilian arms ownership.
first, that is incorrect. You may disagree with the logic, but being able to defend oneself, instead of delegation the monopolization of defense to a corrupt and bloated power hungery institution, is pretty reasonable.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
it is stupid. people's tyrranic and violent impulses are too much to have HOPE for in the greater part of the world and further means to kill other shudnt be given to them.
aside from the fact that America stands alone among gun owning nations with their ridiculous stats?
aside from the fact that many nations have incorporated their militiristic and cultural love of guns into a responsible and peaceful gun filled society?
Originally posted by leonheartmm
think bout it, if sumday, sum device is invented which cud kill another human being without fail just by THINKING about them, wud you ALSO be for the public's right to own such a thing.
well, at least you aren't jumping to ridiculous conclusions
the best answer I can give you is that I do not support the governments monopolization on any form of self-defense. I can personally hope that researchers aren't wasting their time on something like that (and the fact that non-lethal warfare is getting a lot of funding at the moment somewhat comforts me) but I can't justify it being only in the hands of government.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
or how about if a device is invented which can destroy the universe{or lets just take a simpler example considering mass produced nuclear warheads which are at some time, cheap enough for an average individual to own} would you also be for the publics right to OWN those arms??!?!?!?!
same as above. I'm not excited people might own them, but I don't support the monopolization of them by government (or, in the modern world, monopolization of the technology by rich superpowers in order to set local policy of governments around the world)
Originally posted by leonheartmm
please, its the same philosophy and not a huge ste from guns to anti tank rifles to rockets to nukes.
sure it is, at the very least it is a difference of potentially hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars.
But ya, if you are arguing that civilian ownership of a handgun or rifle for self defense is comparable to owning nuclear warheads (and I'm assuming you mean also owning the proper equipment to use them) the best I can say is we are going to have to agree to disagree.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
civilians shudnt own arms, period. if self defence is really the argument people wanna use, then as i said, buy an air taser or the loads of other non lethal weapons which are PROVEN to be far more effective at stopping power{all that you need for self DEFENCE} than most 9mm or 45. handguns.
can I see your source on this?
but ya, I agree. If it wasn't that they would only send them to police stations (to ensure only police officers buy them) I'd own and carry a combat baton at all times.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
{point im making, you shud realise that most people who want such arms want them for MORE than just defence and hence arent SATISFIED with non lethal weapons}
you aren't arguing with said person, nor do I think a non-lethal weapon will be sufficent if an armed suspect enters my home.
it has to do with the concept of positive evidence. Basically, I can only ever provide evidence to say one theory is correct, and that evidence can't say that another theory is incorrect.Its more a recognition that we can never say we know something with 100% certainty, it is also about the idea that evidence that supports one theory could always be made to fit another theory.
Its much less relevant here, I iirc, I addressed the negative anyway as if it were a positive.
well argued.
so, you said guns should be banned because as crime rises so will the instance of gun related crime. Its not my fault you made a dumb argumentby that line of logic, anything thats use in crime increases as crime rates increase is viable to be banned. I didn't say this, you did. and it is as silly as I made it sound.
I don't get what you are saying.are you saying there aren't a lot of guns in switzerland or that there is a lot of violence there?
LOLomg, is your argument really that violence is ok, but gun violence, thats just terrible.
ha! its just too damned effective!
do you really think the problem in that situation is the gun?Do you think things like that don't happen in switzerland? nobody beats their wife of cheats on their spouses?
There are 3 guns for every 10 people in Canada (9 for 10 in america). Legally registered guns that people own responsibly are almost NEVER used for murder in this way.
I get it, you don't like guns. boo hoo
Originally posted by backdoorman
At the confusion of this poorly constructed post, I will limit my response to this: Whether you can or cannot prove a negative, you can certainly find facts that clearly suggest a negative assertion to be legitimate.
🙄
geez, last time I try philosophy of science in a debate
Originally posted by backdoorman
I don't think the main problem is guns, and I don't believe we should outlaw guns. I do think some regulations should be imposed on the sale of guns however, as I do not think people with a history of violence or crime record or some types of mental illness should so easily as that just be able to buy an effective instrument used for killing.
alright, as long as it isn't necessarily government making those restrictions, I probably agree