Still working to recover. Please don't edit quite yet.
Negative proof
| This article may contain material from Wikipedia An article on this subject has been redirected to another page on WP: Negative proof Current versions of the GNU FDL article on Wikipedia may contain information useful to the improvement of this article |
WP R E D |
Negative proof, the fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative, is a logical fallacy of the following form:
- "X is true because there is no proof that X is false."
It is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false. [1]
For example:
- "'Stone Age tree forts' must have existed, because archaeologists have no proof that they did not exist". (While it is allowable that the possibility exists, this shifts the burden of proof away from the proposition that they did in fact exist)
However, the fallacy can also occur when the predicate of a subject is denied:
- "Archaeologists have no proof of the existence of 'Stone Age tree forts', therefore they must not have existed." (While the burden of proof is properly placed upon the the proposition of existence, this ignores possibilities, such as the proposed 'tree fort' structure rotting completely away, leaving no evidence)
Negative proof statements do not always follow this full form. For example, if it is said, in a discussion of 'Stone Age tree forts' that "there is no evidence that they exist", or "there is no evidence that they do not exist".
Appropriate uses of negative evidence[edit]
Proof is preferred, and there is no substitute. According to the scientific method, if no formal proof exists, to assert that something is true until disproved is fallacious. However, if there is no proof, then less stringent requirements may be preferable to no conclusion. Therefore, a reversed burden of proof may be appropriate.
In law, however, the consequence of unjust imprisonment was considered to be worse than to not obtain a conviction,[2][3] therefore lack of proof is sufficient to obtain a judgment of innocence. A defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, a legal finding of innocence does not mean that the defendant did not commit the crime. It only means that for the purposes of law, the defendant is innocent.
When there are two competing explanations, and neither can be confirmed by observation, e.g. when an empirical relationship has been observed, but the underlying mechanism is unknown, it may be reasonable to infer from the lack of conflicting evidence that the observed relationship is most likely causal. (c.f. Correlation does not imply causation) (See also: Inference to the Best Explanation)
Though a lack of positive evidence can never disprove a hypothesis, a statistically large number of negative instances may make it highly improbable. For example, the lack of success in finding life on Mars, and the lack of a recognizable chemical signature of life, suggests that there is no life on Mars. However, it remains possible that we have not looked in the right place, or not recognized the evidence.
In the absence of proof, Occam's razor, which states that the best explanation tends to be the one requiring the fewest additional assumptions, may be invoked. Such an explanation invokes the fewest intermediate factors while maintaining its predictive power; that is, its ability to explain current data and to predict future data.
See also[edit]
References[edit]
- ↑ Negative proof. Safalra.
- ↑ Robert Desty. The Supreme Court reporter, Volume 15, West Publishing Company.Blackstone: "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
- ↑ The History of the presumption of innocence. Talk Left. "...Delphidius, "a passionate man," seeing that the failure of the accusation was inevitable, could not restrain himself, and exclaimed, "Oh, illustrious Caesar! if it is sufficient to deny, what hereafter will become of the guilty?" to which Julian replied, "If it suffices to accuse, what will become of the innocent?..."
