Bernie and wife under FBI Investigation

[One Bad Pig]

sure negatives can be proven. I can prove I was not in Timbuktu at the scene of the murder so I am innocent.

That's only if you have positive proof that you were somewhere else.

[Jin-roh]

sure negatives can be proven. I can prove I was not in Timbuktu at the scene of the murder so I am innocent.

You say your passport has no stamp? I say that you traveled to Timbuktu on a fake passport. You say you people saw you in America? I say you paid them to be your alibi. You say no one saw you in Timbuktu? I say that you must have traveled there in disguise...

I sincerely hope that you are never accused of a crime, or defend yourself in court.

The point being, presumption of innocence is not merely about legal convention, but also more generally about logic and burden of proof.

[Sparko]

That's only if you have positive proof that you were somewhere else.

[demi-conservative]

Hi!

So here's it works.

Hi!!!!

So this is about how stupid you are being!

It is of course, literally true that some is morally innocent or guilty.

Thank you for conceding case!! Oh wait, you still have idiocy to display

Presumption of innocence is not merely a legal construct, but also logical one. It is such, because negatives cannot be proven.

What does proof of logic have anything to do here?? What court demands that high standard of proof/disproof??

Look, you made stupid point and got caught. It can be end of story!! No need to try and bring in 'logical proof', pretend it's what courts do and try to bull[censored] way through.

[Sparko]

You say your passport has no stamp? I say that you traveled to Timbuktu on a fake passport. You say you people saw you in America? I say you paid them to be your alibi. You say no one saw you in Timbuktu? I say that you must have traveled there in disguise...

that is just you being ornery, it has nothing to do with logic or proving a negative. Using that standard you can't prove a positive. I just have to make up excuses why you are lying.

I sincerely hope that you are never accused of a crime, or defend yourself in court.

I think I would fare better than you with that sort of logic.

[Meh Gerbil]

that is just you being ornery, it has nothing to do with logic or proving a negative. Using that standard you can't prove a positive. I just have to make up excuses why you are lying.

Jin-roh is correct about the universal negative.
It is a common logical fallacy with which I know you're familiar.

I'm not understanding your objection here.

[Sparko]

Jin-roh is correct about the universal negative.
It is a common logical fallacy with which I know you're familiar.

I'm not understanding your objection here.

because it is not actually a logical fallacy.

If I say Santa Clause is not in the bathroom closet, I can easily prove he is not by looking in the closet and showing you he is not there. see? No santa clause.

[Meh Gerbil]

because it is not actually a logical fallacy.

If I say Santa Clause is not in the bathroom closet, I can easily prove he is not by looking in the closet and showing you he is not there. see? No santa clause.

Universal negative.
Example Proposition: No S is P

You could prove that Santa Claus isn't currently in your closet but you cannot prove that he's never been in your closet.

[Sparko]

Universal negative.
Example Proposition: No S is P

You could prove that Santa Claus isn't currently in your closet but you cannot prove that he's never been in your closet.

oh so you are qualifying it all of a sudden?

Well yeah if I had a camera in the closet or a santa clause detector in there from the time it was built I could prove he has never been in my closet.

read this:

https://departments.bloomu.edu/philo...eanegative.pdf

[rogue06]

This is all reminding me of the time when Magellan004 claimed I was wrong when I said if I found my keys in my pocket it proves that they aren't over in the desk drawer.

[KingsGambit]

This is all reminding me of the time when Magellan004 claimed I was wrong when I said if I found my keys in my pocket it proves that they aren't over in the desk drawer.

Did you know electromagnets are illegal in Australia?

[rogue06]

Did you know electromagnets are illegal in Australia?

And that evolutionary theory teaches that starfish come from stars breeding with fish and the horses developed longer legs since the Eocene one leg at a time.

m004 starfish.jpg Magellan HorseMutation1.jpg
illustrations that m004 used while making his case
which I was only too happy to save for posterity

[Meh Gerbil]

oh so you are qualifying it all of a sudden?

I've only ever referred to it as a universal negative.
But then again, I'm a bit more precise than the sloppy Jin-roh.

[Sparko]

I've only ever referred to it as a universal negative.
But then again, I'm a bit more precise than the sloppy Jin-roh.

still, as that paper shows, a universal negative is still logically provable, albeit harder and could be physically impossible depending on the topic. But it isn't a logical fallacy or illogical.

[Mountain Man]

still, as that paper shows, a universal negative is still logically provable, albeit harder and could be physically impossible depending on the topic. But it isn't a logical fallacy or illogical.

"You can't prove a negative!" is a popular rallying cry of ignorant atheists (is there any other kind?) who are desperate to avoid shouldering the burden of proof.