Dallin Oaks and Charlie Kirk.

[deacon blues]

It's impossible to prove a negative" is a phrase I hear tossed around in debates and epistemology from time to time. It hasn't yet been proven true.
Curiously Dallin Oaks and Charlie Kirk have both used variations of this phrase to defend their apologetics. Oaks said in a speech to CES people that the BOM could never be proven false and that the best that critics could hope for was a draw.
Charlie Kirk's motto was "Prove me wrong" which gave him the advantage, at least in his own mind, of putting opponents in an impossible bind.
I think it is probably a matter of semantics and epistemology. I betting some of you may have a better understanding of this old argument.

[wtfluff]

The statement "you can't prove a negative" is a common saying that generally means it's difficult or impossible to definitively show the non-existence of something, especially a vague or universal claim. However, this saying is not a strict rule of logic; many negatives can be proven, particularly those that are logically inconsistent (like a square circle) or those with specific, limited scope that can be exhaustively checked. The difficulty often lies in the practical limitations of observation and the philosophical concept of the burden of proof, which places the responsibility of proof on the person making the positive claim.

When Proving a Negative is Difficult

• Vague or Universal Claims: It's hard to prove there are no unicorns anywhere in the universe because you can't search every single location.
• Absence of Evidence: Proving that something doesn't exist based on a lack of evidence is often not a valid proof.

When Proving a Negative is Possible

• Logical Contradictions: You can prove a negative by demonstrating a logical impossibility. For example, one can prove that a "square circle" cannot exist because that would be both a square and not a square simultaneously.
• Specific, Limited Claims: If someone claims there's a specific person under your bed, you can prove that negative claim by simply looking under the bed and seeing that no one is there.
• Converting Negatives to Positives: Many negative claims can be logically rewritten into equivalent positive claims. For instance, the claim "no elephants are in my room" is equivalent to "every item in my room is not an elephant".
  Inconsistent Claims: You can prove a negative by showing that the claim itself is logically inconsistent.

Misconceptions and the "Burden of Proof"

• The Statement is Self-Defeating: The claim "you can't prove a negative" is itself a negative statement, and if it were true, it would be unprovable, creating a logical contradiction.
• It's About Burden of Proof: When people say "you can't prove a negative," they often mean it's irrational to demand that someone prove a negative; the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. For example, in a legal setting, a defendant is not required to prove they are innocent; the prosecution must prove they are guilty.

Generated with the assistance of AI. Be sure to check for accuracy.

[SaidNobody]

It's impossible to prove a negative" is a phrase I hear tossed around in debates and epistemology from time to time. It hasn't yet been proven true.
Curiously Dallin Oaks and Charlie Kirk have both used variations of this phrase to defend their apologetics. Oaks said in a speech to CES people that the BOM could never be proven false and that the best that critics could hope for was a draw.
Charlie Kirk's motto was "Prove me wrong" which gave him the advantage, at least in his own mind, of putting opponents in an impossible bind.
I think it is probably a matter of semantics and epistemology. I betting some of you may have a better understanding of this old argument.

It's actually worse than that.

You really can't prove anything.

Evidence and proof have to be connected with perspective and consciousness. In a court of law, you bring evidence and then you use words and ideas and perspective to convince the judge or the jury that you are story is true.

Proof can only exist in the mind.

Sometimes people like to pretend they can speak for everyone or a group. Like if I show you the American flag some might consider that proof that it is the American flag. But it's also debatable.

When Charlie Kirk use that phrase, prove me wrong, it wasn't quite the same as many of the philosophical arguments where that phrase is used. You can't prove a negative, it's sort of like saying you can't prove god. But that's also sort of a cop out. If I can't prove god, then you can't prove government. I can show you evidence of temples and priests and followers and people who identify with the god, but some people won't consider that as evidence. So showing me presidents and buildings and constitutions and things like that isn't proof either.