It is a basic rule of logic that burden of proof always lies on the affirmative, that whoever asserts something will be the one who has to prove it. Ei incombit probatio qui didt, non qui negat – “the burden of proof lies upon him who affirms, not him who denies” – and so whoever tries to shift the burden of proof to the opponent by insisting that a claim is true simply because it has not been shown to be false is committing a logical fallacy.
Burden lies on the affirmative. But now the question is, What is an affirmative? Does it simply mean a ‘positive’ claim, hence statements in the negative carry no such burden?
Let us see how Webster defines the word affirmative:
We see in No. 3 that affirmative also means ‘positive’. Now let’s see what positive means:
1 a: formally laid down or imposed : PRESCRIBED <positive laws> b: expressed clearly or peremptorily <her answer was a positive no> c: fully assured : CONFIDENT<positive it was her book>
It appears that affirmative and positive are about confident assertion instead of statements that are merely positively worded (take a look at the above example, “her answer was a positive no“). As such, the statements “There are no fairies” and “Fairies don’t exist” are therefore actually affirmative statements and so they are also laden with the burden of proof. (By the way, asserting that “there are no fairies” is not the same as saying “I don’t believe in fairies”, because the latter is not affirming their non-existence but simply disbelieving their existence.)
Now some might say that it is impossible to prove a negative. I beg to disagree. One can prove certain negatives, like proving that there are no “supercontinents” ten times the size of Asia (one can easily accomplish that with Google Earth). Other negatives may be harder – but still not impossible – to prove, like the statement that “There is no oil in Davao City”, because one would then have to dig up every square inch of the entire city to prove that.
I read this article about proving a negative that states that “a person is justified in believing that X does not exist if all of these conditions are met:
1. the area where evidence would appear, if there were any, has been comprehensively examined, and
2. all of the available evidence that X exists is inadequate, and
3. X is the sort of entity that, if X exists, then it would show.”
I totally agree. In the case of the “supercontinents”, all three conditions are easily met, especially #3.
But as for fairies, it would be virtually impossible to prove their non-existence because even if we had simultaneous 24-hour video coverage on every garden and forest on Earth showing no fairies (satisfying conditions #1 and #2), believers would simply say that fairies are normally invisible but can choose to show themselves to certain people at certain times, failing condition #3.
However, the inability to prove there are no fairies doesn’t automatically allow for the conclusion that fairies do exist, because that would also be an affirmative statement requiring proof. And so we are left with a technical stalemate as far as proof goes. But not probability.
Fairies are simply way too improbable that although it is impossible to prove their non-existence, one can reasonably live his/her life on the assumption that they don’t exist. And so when planting a garden, it would be a good idea to till it and water it and fertilize it – instead of just lying down waiting for fairies to magically make it bloom.
schopenhauer
Twin-Skies
innerminds
justinaquino
wes
Ian Baltazar
nino
PinoyHeathen
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
yes agree there, its hard to prove a negative like this example because the entity in question doesn’t play within the known natural rules of physics. as with debunking other crypto-zoological creatures like bigfoot or the lochness monster, one could study their place in the ecology. what it eats, who eats it, where does it live, how does it reproduce? like any other creature, it should leave observable tracks of its existence like habitat, waste, corpses, etc. and to simply say that it’s very rare also doesn’t cut it. every species should maintain a sizeable population else its genepool gets too corrupted from too much inbreeding.
but as you pointed out, magical entities that can existing without eating and shitting would be kinda pointless to even go look for.
one caveat i could think of going against its existence though is the rule of the jungle. a species with no known predators and possesses abilities no one could fight against would be top dog. it should then dominate the world and mold it to suit its whim (kinda like what people are doing right now)
great and useful article. I recommend it those who don’t know how to make constructive claims, that lead to non-constructive arguments.
” And so when planting a garden, it would be a good idea to till it and water it and fertilize it – instead of just lying down waiting for fairies to magically make it bloom.”
what do fairies do? what are they supposed to do? according to this, they make plants grow? if so, there is an indirect test for their existence, which is exactly what you suggest.
testing requres a hypothesis. if your hypothesis is: “fairies make all plants grow”, you CAN test it.
You have a point there, GabbyD. If the claim “fairies make plants grow” is added to the proposition that “fairies exist”, it would be easier to prove their existence or non-existence. But what if we muddle this more by saying that fairies sometimes choose not to make certain plants grow for reasons only fairies can understand?
now we’re talking. this is what i’ve tried to stress. the existence of fairies (or god) that has NO physical empirical content is untestable by science and is fundamentally not a scientific question. it is useless discussing it in scientific terms, as what many people here seem to want to do.
This is a freethinking group, so whatever topics we discuss here will be discussed using science, logic, and reason. Since we have no empirical/scientific data on fairies, the probability of their existence (or non-existence) will be tackled using reason and logic (e.g., burden of proof).
i dont think the existence (or not) of god can be proved by logic either. logic requires axioms, statements that are true without proof. at some point, you have to believe in something.
but if you think u can, go right ahead. but this is thin gruel innerminds.
I never said that logic can prove the existence or non-existence of fairies; logic can only consider the PROBABILITY of their existence or non-existence. I even mentioned in the second from the last sentence of the second from the last paragraph that “we are left with a technical stalemate as far as proof goes”.
In my personal experience, there are no fairies, no invisible things that nurture our gardens nor ourselves.
If we want to survive, we need to be actively engaged in improving/evolving ourselves, otherwise, there will be cellular death. In a nutshell, you need to eat to survive, you need to water your plants for it to grow.
In the forests, nature take its course… I believe in nature, but not god.