What to do: Proving Negatives?

[KingNor]

I know this might be a tad off topic, but it deals with Conspiracy Theorists.

I have a friend who is really into Conspiracy Theorys, I think deep down he doesn't beleive him but on the surface he's an Anti-Skeptic.

He tends to beleive the conspiracy from the get go untill overwhelming edvidence shows the theory to be wrong.

My main question is what should I do when confronted with proving a negative?

Its a paticular pet peeve of mine... example:

"Aliens were brought to Area 51. Prove it didn't happen."

"Prove the President DIDN'T know 9/11 was about to happen"

Generally its all but impossible to reason away that something "couldn't" have happend, so on principle i've been just flatly refusing to acknowledge proving something didn't happen, and tell him to prove that something DID happen.

What would be a quick way (and non-inflamitory) way to express this point quickly to someone so as not to sound like i'm afraid of the topic, or putting them down.

I like debating Conspiracy Theorys, its kind of fun and rewarding to figure them out, find the holes and expose them, but proving negatives is damn near imposible.

any advice?

[twinstead]

You could claim an invisible elf visits your back yard on alternate Tuesdays and demand he prove it's not true.

[Huevos Grandes]

Generally its all but impossible to reason away that something "couldn't" have happend, so on principle i've been just flatly refusing to acknowledge proving something didn't happen, and tell him to prove that something DID happen.

That's the wrong tact. Refusal to acknowledge his possibility is more childish than his introduction of bizarre theories. Proof for the "positive", such as the Apollo Moon landings, or lack of Area 51 alien cover-up, exists in mountains of evidence. Evidence for his claims exist in the much less credible "it's a cover-up", or "there are a lot of rumors" type. Conspiracies exist in abundance, but are generally pretty hard to keep secret. It's when people start seeing them in every facet of human existence, or worse- when Hollywood starts to popularize it, that the trains really come off the tracks.

What would be a quick way (and non-inflamitory) way to express this point quickly to someone so as not to sound like i'm afraid of the topic, or putting them down.

Ask him for his evidence, and why he thinks his sources are credible. If the sources are Hoagland, Sitchin, or some other John Edwards type, then feel free to attack the credibility and past character of the source. Ask him why he feels that your evidence is corrupt. An answer like "the government does it all the time and we just don't know it" isn't a viable answer.

I like debating Conspiracy Theorys, its kind of fun and rewarding to figure them out, find the holes and expose them, but proving negatives is damn near imposible.

People will ultimately believe what they want to believe. Some voters voted for Ford in 1976, despite massive evidence of corruption and incompetence at the highest levels (Ronald Reagan led his first assault on the nomination). And 4/5 of the world purportedly believes in some supernatural force and/or god(s), yet there has never been a majority type of belief; the difference of opinion has been powerful enough to cause these groups to go as far as killing each and exterminating each other to this day. Try to live with reason and respect truth, but remember to keep an eye on the wack-job smelly man on the subway who talks to himself.

[NEOWatcher]

You could claim an invisible elf visits your back yard on alternate Tuesdays and demand he prove it's not true.

Again with the invisible elfs . And I thought the deer around here were a problem.

Anyway, equate it with "innocent until proven guilty". A conspiracy usually denotes a crime, therefore it is up to the prosecuter to prove thier case. You have "reasonable doubt", so you have the upper hand (if the glove fits)

[Taks]

I"Aliens were brought to Area 51. Prove it didn't happen."

"Prove the President DIDN'T know 9/11 was about to happen"

both statements start out with an unproven statement made as fact. i.e. until the statement "Aliens were brought to Area 51." is proven, the rest is pointless.

Generally its all but impossible to reason away that something "couldn't" have happend, so on principle i've been just flatly refusing to acknowledge proving something didn't happen, and tell him to prove that something DID happen.

yes, but in this case, there are alternatives. whether your friend agrees is another story.

What would be a quick way (and non-inflamitory) way to express this point quickly to someone so as not to sound like i'm afraid of the topic, or putting them down.

tell him that in any logical argument, "statements of fact" must be either axiomatic or first proven to be fact (difficult, at best, to do). given that he has made a statement of fact without proof, the burden is first on him to provide such proof. the problem goes away... however, he likely won't buy that.

taks

[Disinfo Agent]

My main question is what should I do when confronted with proving a negative?

Its a paticular pet peeve of mine... example:

"Aliens were brought to Area 51. Prove it didn't happen."

"Prove the President DIDN'T know 9/11 was about to happen"

Generally its all but impossible to reason away that something "couldn't" have happend, so on principle i've been just flatly refusing to acknowledge proving something didn't happen, and tell him to prove that something DID happen.

What would be a quick way (and non-inflamitory) way to express this point quickly to someone so as not to sound like i'm afraid of the topic, or putting them down.

Maybe they were. What's his evidence?

If you have the opportunity, it might be good if you could point out to him that his behaviour in unrelated, everyday matters is not to believe in any and every possibility by default. For example, does he bring an umbrella with him every time he leaves his house, just because it may rain that day? No. He either guides his decision by the weather forecast (even though he knows that weather forecasting is never 100% accurate), or he takes a look at the cloudy sky, and, based on past experience, decides it's better to be prepared. In other words, his everyday, routine decisions, are always based on some kind of evidence. Why should he not apply that highly successful method to conspiracy theories, as well?

'Show me the money', as they say.

[mancur]

As others have said, you cannot prove a negative. Don't even try.

To illustrate, ask your friend to prove the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy don't exist. He can't. Just because your parents may hide Easter eggs or leave money under your pillow does not in any way mean that the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy do not exist. Every possibility cannot be accounted for.

The entire burden of proof, rather, is on the person MAKING the claim. And, to paraphrase Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

The fact that not a single shred of physical evidence exists for all UFO claims, nor that a single psychic has ever proven his/her abilities in a controlled environment, does not mean that UFOs and psychics do NOT exist. It just means that those currently making the claims have no substance and no proof.

Science is the search for truth.

Your friend is either adrift intellectually, or possesses a devious sense of humor.

[Joe Durnavich]

you cannot prove a negative

Prove it.

[AstroSmurf]

That's just it - you can't. Q.E.D!

[JayUtah]

My main question is what should I do when confronted with proving a negative?

Stubbornly refuse to do it. Shifting the burden of proof is the most common tactic a conspiracy theorist employs. It is not possible to prove a negative. If a refuting a proposition requires proving a negative, the proposition is untestable and cannot be rationally held.

What would be a quick way (and non-inflamitory) way to express this point quickly to someone so as not to sound like i'm afraid of the topic, or putting them down.

You can be assertive without being inflammatory. Dispute something he cherishes (so he's well motivated to defend it) and blame it instead on invisible elves. Then challenge him to refute the invisible elf theory. After he has floundered a bit, then he might be more receptive to why positive proof is required.

Don't soften the notion that the burden of proof inherently lies in certain places.

[N C More]

Here's what I usually tell someone who is trying to 'shift the burden', so to speak. The burden of proof for anything (UFOs, PX, Bigfoot) falls upon the person making the claim. It's not the responsibility of others to somehow *disprove* something that has yet to be proven in the first place!

[JayUtah]

It's true that claimants have the burden of proof, but it's not often evident to people why it has to be true.

A case for non-existence can never rise to a certainty greater than failure to produce evidence of existence, no matter how apparently exhaustive the search for it is.

Looking all over for a frumious bandersnatch and coming up empty-handed does not prove that bandersnatchi don't exist; only that your efforts so far to locate one have proven fruitless. There may indeed be a bandersnatch that hasn't yet been found. But producing a bandersnatch for inspection is iron-clad proof that one exists. It cannot be rationally debated.

So when you have a condition where it is possible to prove a proposition without question, but not possible to prove its converse except by continued fruitless effort, the converse is held until the proposition is established. The reverse of this would not work; you would never be able to achieve a reliable conclusion.

[Gillianren]

Jay, I'm curious--why is the plural of "bandersnatch" "bandersnatchi"?

[Count Zero]

Jay, I'm curious--why is the plural of "bandersnatch" "bandersnatchi"?

Read Larry Niven; specifically World of Ptavvs. Yes, it's quite dated, but like some of the Heinlein juveniles, it's still a crackling good yarn.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

That's the wrong tact. Refusal to acknowledge his possibility is more childish than his introduction of bizarre theories.

Refusing to disprove his theory and instead insisting that he prove it (which is what KingNor said) would not be refusal to acknowledge, although I'll bet he will take it as such.

[JayUtah]

Jay, I'm curious--why is the plural of "bandersnatch" "bandersnatchi"?

In the works of science fiction author Larry Niven, the bandersnatch is an actual animal named from Carroll's "Jabberwocky". Niven decided the plural is "bandersnatchi".

[N C More]

Here's a link to Niven's dangerous creatures. It appears that the bandersnatch is sort of a giant slug!

[Van Rijn]

Here's a link to Niven's dangerous creatures. It appears that the bandersnatch is sort of a giant slug!

Sort of. It is a huge ancient engineered food animal that can't evolve, but is very dangerous, very smart, and probably sentient.

[Van Rijn]

What would be a quick way (and non-inflamitory) way to express this point quickly to someone so as not to sound like i'm afraid of the topic, or putting them down.

I like debating Conspiracy Theorys, its kind of fun and rewarding to figure them out, find the holes and expose them, but proving negatives is damn near imposible.

any advice?

I ran into this many times and came up with the invisible elf argument (see my sig). The basic argument isn't unusual, but a "yard elf" isn't very threatening and can inject a bit of humor into a discussion. Invisible elves could be responsible for just about any conspiracy and good luck proving there isn't one camping out in my backyard . . .

Of course, CTers always have a great deal invested in whatever belief they are pushing, whether it is NASA hiding evidence of Martian Rock Sheep, Nazi/Alien lunar bases, ET anti-gravity machines at Area 51, or whatever. Don't be surprised if they insist that their particular belief is different from all the others. The reasons will be obvious to them but will probably make as much sense as invisible elves to you.

[Gillianren]

In the works of science fiction author Larry Niven, the bandersnatch is an actual animal named from Carroll's "Jabberwocky". Niven decided the plural is "bandersnatchi".

Thanks. (And to all others who answered.) I have, of course, read "Jabberwocky"--and Alice's Adventures Through the Looking-Glass, naturally--but not Niven.