The Validation of Negative Propositions

The rational view of negative propositions is nothing is nothing. A negative proposition is to be established by showing simply that there is no evidence for the corresponding positive proposition. That’s all.

In validating a negative, the same consistency is required. How would you establish, for instance, that there is no mouse in this room? The only way you would do it is to show that there is no evidence for the existence of a mouse, no evidence for the positive, and thus the negative is validated^[1]—not directly, but indirectly by the absence of evidence for the positive. It is not as though you have a special perceptual evidence of a non-mouse, like some kind of special dark vision revealing non-mouse. There is no special positive perceptual evidence against the mouse. There is no anti-mouse^[2] vision which you can have. There is merely no evidence for the mouse, and nothing else is required.^[3]

Claiming to know something does not exist requires evidence that excludes its existence. For example, both “I will get leukemia in the next month” and “I will not get leukemia in the next month” require Proof. In the absence of evidence, neither claim should be entertained. The idea that it is impossible to prove a “negative” means it is impossible to Refute an Arbitrary assertion.

The Burden of Proof Principle also applies to negative statements: “ S is not P” or even “S does not exist.” Take the statement, “There is no life elsewhere in the universe.” Given the state of our ignorance (or, if you prefer, the ignorance of 100 years ago), there is no evidence for this “negative” claim — as there is none for the corresponding positive: “There is life elsewhere in the universe” (probabilistic appeals to the huge number of stars in the universe notwithstanding).

[...] the familiar idea that it is impossible to prove a “negative” actually means: it is impossible to disprove an Arbitrary assertion; it is impossible to proceed under the assumption that any assertion stands until refuted, or that only a disproof of an assertion would justify not accepting it as a “maybe.”^[4]