LOGIC. THE FALLACY OF PROVING A NEGATIVE. PT 4.

Here are a few Examples of Individuals and Groups using the FALLACY OF PROVING A NEGATIVE, AND HOW YOU MIGHT ANSWER THEM USING CRITICAL THINKING.

#1.WITNESS-  "I KNOW WHAT I SAW. YOU WEREN'T THERE. ARE YOU SAYING I AM A LIAR?"

ANSWER-  "NOT AT ALL. SINCE EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY IS BY DEFINITION SUBJECTIVE, THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW WHAT YOU ACTUALLY OBSERVED.  THERE ARE TO MANY FACTORS THAT GO INTO THE WAY YOUR MIND PERCEIVES INCOMING INFORMATION FROM YOUR FIVE SENSES, AND HOW IT IS EVALUATED AND STORED INTO MEMORY."

THESE FACTORS INCLUDE;

-  PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS.

-  EMOTIONAL STATE OF MIND.

-  INFLUENCE FROM OTHERS SOURCES, WHICH 

CAN OCCUR AT THE TIME OF THE EVENT, OR IN 

THE FUTURE.

-  FINANCIAL AND/OR SOCIAL SELF- INTEREST, 

OR REWARDS VS NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES.

-  TIME OF DAY, WEATHER, DISTANCE AND DURATION

OF THE EVENT.

THIS IS WHY ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE CANNOT BE USED, 

BY ITSELF,  TO REACH A CONCLUSION ABOUT THE 

EXISTENCE OF ANY PHENOMENA.

LOOK FOR PART 5.

LOGIC. THE FALLACY OF PROVING A NEGATIVE. PT 3.

The FALLACY OF PROVING A NEGATIVE is an Invalid Form of Argumentation, that is Popular with Certain Types of PSEUDOSCIENCE AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE.

WHY?  The Conclusions being Claimed as Factual by These Subject Categories Require the Use of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, and the Availability of PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AND DATA so that they can be properly evaluated.  THIS WILL INDICATE THE TYPE OF RESEARCH METHODS USED TO SUPPORT ANY CONCLUSIONS BEING MADE, AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY WILL STAND UP TO INTELLECTUAL SCRUTINY.

 

LOCH NESS, SCOTLAND.

Unfortunately, for Those who believe in the CLAIMS OF TRUTH Advocated by The Proponents of PSEUDOSCIENCE AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE, THEY SELDOM MEET SUCH CRITERIA.  THE FALLACY OF PROVING A NEGATIVE IS A WAY AROUND THESE PROBLEMS.

As I have Asserted in other Articles, SCIENCE, LOGIC, AND CRITICAL THINKING ARE NOT PROCESSES THAT YOU CAN USE PART OF THE TIME, OR EVEN MOST OF THE TIME.  THEY MUST BE USED, AND THEIR RULES AND GUIDELINES FOLLOWED EXACTLY, OR YOU CANNOT TRUST, PROVE, OR VALIDATE CONCLUSIONS BEING MADE IN ANY FIELD.

HOWEVER, Before I go any Further with Examples OF THIS FALLACY, the Following must be Understood, for it is Often a Sticking Point that Creates Confusion when Discussing The Fallacy of Proving A Negative.

CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:

-  REQUIRING SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT INDICATES THE EXISTENCE OF A PHENOMENA, THAT MEETS THE RULES AND STANDARDS OF LOGIC AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, ONLY MEANS THAT A BURDEN OF PROOF MUST BE MET FOR IT TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED AS TRUE, PROBABLE, OR EVEN POSSIBLE BY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.  

-  THIS IS NOT A DENIAL THAT THE PHENOMENA CANNOT OR DOES NOT EXIST,  BUT A JUDGMENT THAT SAYS THERE HAS NOT BEEN ADEQUATE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT SUCH A CONCLUSION.

THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FAITH AND FACT.

LOGIC. HOW CAN YOU SPOT A WELL REASONED ARGUMENT, OR AN IRRATIONAL ONE? PT 3.

Although I have Touched upon the Following in other Posts on this Website, 

it still has a Tremendous Influence on the Subject Matter that is covered  in this Article.  

We can Break it down like this, when discussing Investigations into the Paranormal:

THAT ANY JUDGMENTS OR CONCLUSIONS MADE ABOUT THE REALITY OR EXISTENCE OF A PARTICULAR PHENOMENA IS OFTEN MADE WITH ASSUMPTIONS AND/OR PREMISES THAT ARE UNTRUE, UNVERIFIED OR UNPROVEN.

Here are a couple of examples:

#1.  The "Ghost Hunter" who claims that "Cold Spots" in a room Indicate the 

presence of a Spirit or Supernatural Entity.

HOWEVER;  

-  THE INFRARED THERMOMETER THAT THEY USE IS DESIGNED TO MEASURE THE SURFACE TEMPERATURES OF ANYTHING THEY ARE POINTED AT.  THESE INCLUDE WALLS, FLOORS, PLUMBING, OR EVEN OTHER INDIVIDUALS.  THE READINGS THEY ARE GETTING ARE SIMPLY FROM THE OBJECT OR SURFACE AREA THAT THE UNIT IS BEING DIRECTED TO.  WHAT AN IR THERMOMETER CANNOT DO IS RECORD THE TEMPERATURE OF SOMETHING THAT IS INVISIBLE.

#2.  The Bigfoot Hunter who claims the Plaster Casts of certain Footprints are Proof of a previously Unknown Creature.

-  ACTUALLY, THEY ARE ONLY EVIDENCE OF AN UNIDENTIFIED SHAPE, THAT MAY, OR MAY NOT BE A FOOTPRINT.  WHAT CAUSED THE "FOOTPRINT" IS UNKNOWN UNLESS YOU CAN PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF THE TIME, CIRCUMSTANCES, AND CAUSE.  AS HISTORY HAS SHOWN US, THEY ARE EASY TO FAKE, AND THINGS LIKE SOIL TEMPERATURE AND CONSISTENCY, PRECIPITATION, WIND etc., CAN INFLUENCE THE FINAL SHAPE.

What must be Taken from these Examples, and the The Previous One from Part 2 taken From Politics, is THE FOLLOWING:

AN ASSERTION IS IN NO WAY A MEASURE OF TRUTH.  IN FACT, WITHOUT PROPER AND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP, IT IS SOMETIMES A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO MISLEAD OTHERS INTO ACCEPTING IT AS FACTUAL, WHEN IN REALITY IT IS NOT.

LOGIC. HOW CAN YOU SPOT A WELL REASONED ARGUMENT, OR AN IRRATIONAL ONE? PT 2.

Another way to spot a Bad or Irrational Argument, is when

Someone Attempts to Use an Untrue or Unverified Assertion or Assumption,

to Support a Preconceived Conclusion.

This is Favorite Tactic of Two Groups of People you wouldn't normally Associate with 

each other:  THE POLITICIAN AND THE PARANORMALIST.

WHY? Because Both often Have Preconceived Conclusions on Certain Subjects, and the Evidence Supporting such Conclusions is Usually Poor, or even Non- Existent.  So To Distract the Reader or Viewer from the Fact that They Cannot Prove that These Assertions and Assumptions have any Basis in Reality, They Don't Even Try.  The Truth of such Statements are Accepted without Cause, and are Then used to Argue for a Point of View or Opinion that has Little, if any, Credibility when the Rules of Logic and Critical Thinking are Applied.

Here in an Example Involving the POLITICIAN:

-  The Politician who Attacks Social Programs as Being a Crutch for the Lazy and Unmotivated, who make up the Majority of the Recipients. This ASSERTION IS THEN USED TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT THESE PROGRAMS MUST BE ELIMINATED, FOR THEY ENCOURAGE FAMILIES TO PASS THIS WAY OF LIFE ONTO THE NEXT GENERATION.

Yet, when asked to Provide the Data that Supports the ASSERTION that the MAJORITY OF RECIPIENTS ARE LAZY AND UNMOTIVATED, WHICH INDICATES A DESIRE NOT TO IMPROVE THEIR LOT IN LIFE, THEY ARE NOTORIOUSLY SILENT.  IN FACT, AN ACTUAL REVIEW OF THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION POINTS TO THE FACT THAT SOCIAL PROGRAMS ARE USUALLY TEMPORARY MEASURES FOR FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, THAT MOST RECIPIENTS USE FOR A BRIEF PERIOD OF TIME, AND ARE NOT A PERMANENT WAY OF LIFE.


HOWEVER, THE FALSE ASSERTION ABOUT THE MOTIVATIONS OF THE MAJORITY OF RECIPIENTS, IS USED TO CLAIM THAT IT ENCOURAGES GENERATIONAL DEPENDENCE ON SOCIAL PROGRAMS.  THIS, IN TURN IS GIVEN AS A REASON TO ELIMINATE SUCH PROGRAMS.

It is Nothing Less than a Deliberate Attempt to Demonize a Segment of the U.S. Population, by spreading Lies and
Falsehoods.