No, but they do often claim “You can’t prove a negative.” How can one prove that there isn’t a bigfoot out there? We don’t have the resources to search the entire region at the necessary scale.
I don’t think they want belief to be the “default.” I’m not sure why you introduced the word “default” here at all. They just want to hold the possibility open, and cite the aphorism in defense of this view.
I don’t believe in bigfoot – in fact, I rather positively disbelieve in the idea. But I would not go so far as to say the case is “proven.” That’s a very strong word when it comes to logic.
What you can and cannot prove depends on your standards of proof. Can I possibly prove a negative to you? Well, you tell me what would count to you as possible proof of it (or whether the rules of your game are such that nothing could suffice), and then you’ll have your answer. It’s as simple as that.
I don’t recall Big Foot proponents using the “you can’t prove they don’t exist” argument. The debate is on the quality of the evidence they present. You can’t prove that Big foot does not live in the Pacific Northwest, but you also can’t prove they don’t live in the NY Subway system. (Though I’ve seen some people …)
About the only monster you might be able to demonstrate does not exist is Nessie. Which has pretty much been done.
If your major argument for something is that someone can’t prove its absence, you are pretty much assuming its existence is the default. Not the case for UFOs and monsters, but often the case for gods, since many people have grown up with some god assumed to exist.
I don’t believe in any of these things either, but let’s give the proponents of aliens and monsters some credit.
If that’s what you were trying to say then your original post still doesn’t make sense, as your other example (the one about lions) was about disproving a negative.
Could you provide us with a link to what William Lane Craig actually said, or at least explain your purpose in starting this thread?
I don’t wholly agree… I think the logical default is always “We don’t know.” As evidence is brought forward, we diverge from that neutral stance. We can wobble back and forth, as, for instance, once-convincing evidence is later discovered to have been faked.
(How would one identify or define a “null hypothesis” in such cases?)
I do agree that there are socially defined defaults. The U.S. has so large a majority that believes in God, such belief is a kind of default. If I were introduced to a U.S. citizen, chosen entirely at random, I would wager that he believes in God, just on statistical grounds.
Have you seen it written anywhere? I’d be interested in the argument around it.
If “I don’t know” is the default, then if I ask you about the existence of a one-eyed one-horned purple people eater, you’d have to say “I don’t know.” Seems kind of wimpy. When you start collecting evidence you can evaluate the quality of the evidence and start at least provisionally accepting the non-null hypothesis. But wobbling is very scientific.
While I agree, I didn’t mean the default for what a person believes. Since none of us, especially when we are young, can afford to evaluate everything, we look around at what our peers believe. Which is usually some kind of God. In most places that includes Jesus, but the default for my peers was not believing in Jesus.
Society supports this belief, just like it supports belief in Santa. If you came from Mars, and paid attention to only the readily available mass media, you’d have to conclude that Santa exists, but our belief in him is quite confused. Only when you start looking big fat books and forums with no pictures do you see the alternate view. Santa belief is definitely the default in our society.
I couldn’t point to it, but I have a hazy recollection it’s been used here on the SDMB by bigfoot believers (or at least those defending the possibility.)
Wimpy, I certainly agree. The whole “null hypothesis” business is a little wimpy, because it stems from a very strong determination not to succumb to Type I errors. (Or do I mean Type II?) (Sort of like how, in law, we would rather let ten guilty people go free than imprison one innocent person. It is kind of wimpy…but it’s still a pretty good rule.)
As often before, I have a sense you and I are actually in agreement, but are using certain words slightly differently. This is often my fault, as my education is spottier than a barn owl.
Good examples. I’ve always wondered about disproving a negative, since I can think of some we can disprove pretty easily. GrumpyBunny isn’t a natural blonde can be proven or disproven. GrumpyBunny was *never *a natural blonde is tougher.
Also, as with the Jesus example, you can’t prove that there has never, ever been an elephant in your house.
BlackKnight and Jragon already did a swell job on answering the OP, but I’m going to toss my two cents in.
Skepticism is the default position in evidence-based reasoning. The body of knowledge science has given us is based off of positive claims. Everything we know not to be the case is based off what we know to be the case.
The reason you can demonstrate the claim that there are no lions in Africa false is because we already have evidence that lions do exist in Africa. We have no evidence God exists, and by many people’s interpretation of god; He is outside the realm of being testable. In the words of Wolfgang Pauli, “(They’re) not even wrong”.
Sometimes, without actually knowing for a fact that something is true or false, you can’t always tell that it is.
For example, scientists believe that the universe started with a big “bang,” with particles cooling down, eventually forming our universe. In truth, we don’t know how the universe started, as humans weren’t around when it happened.
The Big Bang is a theory. Theories explain facts. No theory is actually observable, but all facts are. There is no hierarchy between facts and theories. Had you been around just after the Big Bang; You would have seen things expanding similar to how we still see the universe expanding. You would still have to theorize about what you were seeing.
yeahman239: not being around when something happened isn’t an ultimate barrier to knowledge.
("…trout in the milk.")
No one has ever watched an acorn grow into a full-sized oak tree, or a seedling into a giant redwood. But we don’t need to see the whole process to know it happens.
