-3
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 May 2024
-3 points (44.4% liked)
Android
27929 readers
28 users here now
DROID DOES
Welcome to the droidymcdroidface-iest, Lemmyest (Lemmiest), test, bestest, phoniest, pluckiest, snarkiest, and spiciest Android community on Lemmy (Do not respond)! Here you can participate in amazing discussions and events relating to all things Android.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules
1. All posts must be relevant to Android devices/operating system.
2. Posts cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
3. No spam, self promotion, or upvote farming. Sources engaging in these behavior will be added to the Blacklist.
4. Non-whitelisted bots will be banned.
5. Engage respectfully: Harassment, flamebaiting, bad faith engagement, or agenda posting will result in your posts being removed. Excessive violations will result in temporary or permanent ban, depending on severity.
6. Memes are not allowed to be posts, but are allowed in the comments.
7. Posts from clickbait sources are heavily discouraged. Please de-clickbait titles if it needs to be submitted.
8. Submission statements of any length composed of your own thoughts inside the post text field are mandatory for any microblog posts, and are optional but recommended for article/image/video posts.
Community Resources:
We are Android girls*,
In our Lemmy.world.
The back is plastic,
It's fantastic.
*Well, not just girls: people of all gender identities are welcomed here.
Our Partner Communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You can't prove a negative.
I can prove by evidence that there is no milk in this cup.
Yes but can you prove by evidence that there is no milk in my cup, if I won't let you look inside?
Proving the negative or positive would be equally hard then .
Yes, but an absence of a proof of the positive is itself not proof of the negative, so if we're in the unprovable unknown, we're still back at the point that you can't prove a negative.
Well, if the conditions are such that the positive would be absolutely certain to leave evidence, then the lack of said evidence is good enough. Like, I say it’s not snowing where I live. Absolutely nobody in my town sees so much as a single snowflake. Also, it’s 72° out. Haven’t I proven to a reasonable degree that it’s not snowing where I live?
Someone wants a glass of milk :-)
If you enumerate each particle in the cup and verify that it is not a milk particle, yes.
(Milk is a complex colloid of multiple compounds, so good luck with that.)
That’s such a widely used concept and it’s erroneous. You can’t ALWAYS prove a negative. But if you’re able to prove a mutually exclusive positive to the negative condition, then you’ve proven it. For example, proving it is daytime where I’m standing also proves it is not nighttime where I’m standing.
There are circumstances where a negative cannot be practically proven, or without an absurd amount of work. But all you really need to do is empirically demonstrate the negative is the likeliest reasonable scenario and that’s usually good enough, except to someone obstinately trying to stay with their position and therefore demands absolute unequivocal proof - which is a rarity entirely.