Why is it supposedly impossible to prove a negative? If I am

well how do you prove it then

>>2173285
How do you prove a tiny invisible unicorn that orbits the solar system doesn't exist?

>>2173285
The idea is that, e.g. in trying to prove something, you can't derive "false" in that proof. I probably won't explain it well, not being a mathematician, but check these stack answers out:
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/53777/why-is-it-possible-to-conclude-everything-from-a-false-statement

File: gorilla-by-thymilph.jpg (359KB, 1833x2048px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 1833x2048px

I want to fuck that gorilla.

>Calls philosophers stupid
>Doesnt even understand this simple concept

Wow, really makes ya think

>>2174113
Why don't you explain it if its so simple?

>>2174115
Doesn't understand burden of proof.

You made the claim. Prove it.

>A common saying in pseudologic is "You can't prove a negative." This is, as the hatnote up top says, simply not true. This is clearly not true because any statement can be rewritten into the negation of its negation. Any provable statement can be written as a negative. For example, "X is true" can be rewritten as "X is not false", a negative statement! If "X is true" can be proven true, then you have also proven a negative statement "X is not false".

>>2174482
>If "X is true" can be proven true, then you have also proven a negative statement "X is not false".

No. "not false" =/= "true".

Especially if "X" isn't a truth statement.

>>2174499
>The idea that God doesn't exist is true
>The idea that God doesn't exist is not false
They both mean the same thing.

>>2174600

no

People see different colors, people see what they want to believe. You are discussing an opinion, a label for color defined by however many colors (shades) you consider main colors.

Given your choice of example, you likely also mistake and misinterpret the definition of "Negative" or you would understand, not have to question.

>>2174271
Are you trolling or actually fucking stupid?

The statement "It's impossible to prove a negative" is demonstrably false and has fuck all to do with the burden of proof.