Talk:Negative proof

message: The statement
:The law in most democracies also allows negative proofs in criminal cases; namely, a defence lawyer may argue:
::X is innocent because there is no (or insufficient) proof that X is guilty
This statement assumes that Law, democracies, lawyers, a jury and the judiciary process are, or want to be, logical, and there are countless occasions which they are not logical. Also, a defense lawyer argues that someone is not guilty, which may be better to say in this context.
: The problem is that they don't claim the opposite is true, the verdict in law is generally 'guilty' or 'not guilty' and rarely described as 'innocent'.   Not guilty just means a threshold of proof wasn't reached to affirm guilt.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.5.105.174 (talk) 09:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: In Appropriate occasions

message: I have made some minor changes to the article. Please let me know if there is anything to which you take exception, and why. --JorgeP 15:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor changes

message: Shouldnt the form be "X is acceptable because there is no proof that X is unacceptable." instead of "X exists because there is no proof that X doesn't exist.", because the general goal of argumentation is to try to convince a reasonable judge that the standpoint is acceptable. If X is the proposition, the example sentence should be about it's acceptability. The argument in question doesn't necessarily have to do with existence. --JurgenBM 19:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: because the general goal of argumentation is to try to convince a reasonable judge 
yes, in law. change this if you would like. Spencerk 20:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Form of negative proof: 'Acceptable' instead of 'existing'?

message: It's a confused article.
There is certainly a logical problem with the kind of argument that runs:
1. This cannot be proven to be false
C. This is true
As well as 
1. This cannot be proven to be true
C. This is false
Both are not logically deductive arguments. 
Equally, the statement "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!" is not logically incorrect, despite being called a fallacy.  It is logically possible for something to be existant despite a complete lack of evidence for it being true.  
There are of course separate pragmantic arguments as why we should not believe anything that we can't prove.  These arguments are, as the article states, scientific, but they are not logical.
The further claim justifying this statement "This is a crucial point of the Scientific method, that before a claim is thought to be true, it must be proven. All claims must be confirmed by observation. If the claim can not be confirmed this way, the belief must not be asserted. Not-knowing is default." is way too biased.
It should at least attribute the view that this is the way beliefs should be formed to someone or some group.  It is clear that many people believe that it is acceptable to believe on other grounds, whether faith, or paradigmatic grounds.  The idea that all beliefs should be rooted in empirical observation is not the way people live, nor is it wikipedias place to suggest they should (I'm sure a referance to someone or some group that believes they should is fine)
- Wight1984
I agree. "This is a crucial point of the Scientific method, that before a claim is thought to be true, it must be proven. All claims must be confirmed by observation. If the claim can not be confirmed this way, the belief must not be asserted. Not-knowing is default." is.../really/ biased, and well beyond wikipedia's mandate. Hewhorulestheworld 09:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This needs tidying up

message: I've tried to make this article more coherent and logical by editing and removing some excessive text. I hope those who would like to help completing this article will assure these aspects as well. JurgenBM 13:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tidying up

message: Wouldn't it be possible to prove a negative if all elements of the statement were known? Say, for example, a list of names. 'John' is either on the list or not. So if you say, 'There is no evidence that John is on the list, therefore John is not on the list', that is correct, no? Making the inherent problem one of lack of knowledge, not of impossibility. Or is that example excluded from Negative Proof by some property or rule of it that isn't mentioned? Anarchangel (talk) 03:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assuming infinite knowledge, or all knowledge of a finite subject? 

message: First, let me make my biases clear and preface this by saying that I believe humans have definitely contributed to the increase in global temperatures (global warming) in recent years.  That said, I do not find the "Applying the Fallacy" section to be appropriate for this article.  Specifically, I feel this section of the article does not adhere to Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" core policy, particularly the "Let the facts speak for themselves", and "substantiating biased statements" sections.
I take no issue with this section until about mid-way through, when burden of proof shifts to Team 2.  In particular, the phrase, "all the data tells us that global warming is real," is neither attributed to any credible source nor backed by any data to support it.  In fact, the entire section is without any citations or data of any kind; it simply presents global warming as a generally accepted fact, which it is not.  In actuality, global warming remains a highly-contested issue.  Although you certainly could revise this section to have a more neutral tone, such as by providing sources and data that support the existence global warming, there is too much dispute and uncertainty about global warming to make it an acceptable example for this article.  --Frito31382 (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reconsideration of "Applying the Fallacy" 

message: I've acted boldly and redirected to Argument from Ignorance.  I have never seen any mention of Negative Proof in philosophical logic or critical thinking texts and nothing in the article serves to distinguish this fallacy from Argument from Ignorance.  Thus, readers are better served with a redirect. Phiwum (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Argument from ignorance finds proof in lack of proof; negative proof finds proof in lack of evidence. One is concerned with process, the other with situation. See talk.
I find this explanation utterly spurious.  As a logician and teacher of courses in critical thinking, I have never seen a distinction between lack of proof and lack of evidence and I have never seen argument from ignorance presented in such a way that the latter condition is excluded.  Furthermore, I have never seen the term negative proof in any text on critical thinking, logic or rhetoric.  
Note as well that the references themselves lack a single citation of a logician, rhetorician or other credible individual discussing "negative proofs".  The sole citation (safalra.com) that uses the term fails RS.
Finally, we note that the text itself refutes Anarchangel's claimed distinction.  The article clearly states, "It is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false."  Hence, we find no clear difference between negative proof and argument from ignorance and we have no evidence the former term has any widespread usage.
Consequently, I have restored the redirect. Phiwum (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect to Argument from ignorance.