Explanation strength
peace,
Doesn’t this mean that it is impossible to prove that something doesn’t exist? Doesn’t this significantly reduce our ability to inform?
Because we don’t know the total number of possibilities for us to explain something, and what probability should be given to each explanation, the methodological approach lacks ontological validity.
And therefore, conversely, if we can give a certain explanation, then we can also rule out other explanations.
It is not possible to prove that something does not exist, but it is certainly possible to reach a conclusion regarding such a claim. Therefore, it is not correct to say that it is not known to us.
In general, nothing can be proven independently. Every proof depends on assumptions.
That’s why I don’t understand the question.
Do you mean that even though it is not logically possible to prove that something does not exist, it is possible to talk about the probability that something does not exist?
The question arises because of what I saw you answer yesterday to Nathai – Is it possible to prove that something does not exist:
“I do not know of a proof that spirits do not exist, **and cannot think** of such a proof.”
But as you say that proof depends on assumptions, assume Occam's razor in the shop, and for those who accept this, they have evidence that is plausible even if not logically necessary.
You voted with your own keyboard on the way to “prove” non-existence. I call this claiming non-existence and not proving.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
