If you want to play that way, then I’d say that in the Propositional Calculus, ~~A is equivalent to A. Double negatives cancel out, in other words. (To state it more formally, any pair of ~ symbols existing side-by-side can be at any time removed to generate a statement that is valid if the statement they have been removed from is valid.)
To imply that proving ~~A is somehow proving a negative is disingenuous. Especially since, in the Propositional Calculus, it is perfectly possible to prove ~A.
However, the real world is not the Propositional Calculus. We often cannot fully rule something out based on all evidence we have and any evidence we are likely to acquire. This is because real life is not an axiomatic system: In an axiomatic system, evidence is not required, merely the axia and the rules. In the real world, evidence is essential and never complete. Therefore, proving a negative is, in the strictest sense, often impossible.
“I love my gay male fans, but when I was a little girl I used to wish that I would be constantly surrounded by gorgeous guys, and I am, and I should have been more specific.”
Preach it. I’m sick of being corrected at work for using “'s” to follow a singular noun ending in S.
(OTOH, some style guides appear to allow exceptions for proper names ending in S, where the pronounciation would be awkward if you added in another S: e.g. Sophocles’ shirt.)
You can argue, “I’m no homophobe; I’m not afraid of gays!” all you want–but it makes you even more of an idiot. “Homophobia” in English has an established meaning of “irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals” (M-W). Deal with it.
Do you get many people saying “Well, clearly we should invade Iraq because George Bush went to Yale” or “It would seem appropriate to place the chocolate scoop on top of the strawberry scoop because I have a LLB”?
The word is axiom, from the Greek axios, “worthy”, via axioein, “to think worthy, take for granted.” Its plural is thus axioms. It is not an axium, and the plural is not axia.
Well, in that case I would disagree with dictionary.com.
Sour grapes is strict literary term that had a specific meaning, language may change and all that bullshit, but that is just due to idiots misuing the term too often. It is still wrong, just because MORE people are wrong doesn’t make it right.
Michael Ellis and Matt_McL, the coolness of quoting Margaret Cho is an opinion, not a fact, and thus does not belong in this thread, which is about clearing up factual misunderstandings.
There are some people who don’t believe in a deity. No, really, they don’t believe in any deity. These people are not broken. Nothing “happened” to them. They do not generally have horns and they are indistinguishable from theists by sight. One of them is teaching your English class right now. She really doesn’t like it when her students send her evangelical Christian spam. It is not, in fact, a good idea to send any sort of spam to anyone who is determining your grade for the semester.
Oh yes, and if you use the word “society” twenty-five times in the first three paragraphs of your paper, you might be using it too often.
Nit picking is annoying, and does not take from the content of my first post.
See how I got you on your spelling of “incorrect”, in the very post you were criticizing me? What, are you imperfect too?
If you understood my meaning of sour grapes, then the message got through. “Cool” was changed by people to have alternate meanings, but that doesn’t mean that those alternative uses are less valid.
I’m tired of making lists and this futile argument.
