Q&A: The Strength of an Explanation
The Strength of an Explanation
Question
Hello,
Does the fact that it is impossible to prove that something does not exist not significantly reduce our explanatory power?
Since we do not know the full range of possibilities in order to explain something, nor what probability should properly be assigned to each explanation. Just as the methodological approach lacks ontic validity.
And therefore, conversely, if we can give a certain explanation, then we can also rule out other explanations.
Answer
It is not possible to prove that something does not exist, but it is certainly possible to reach a conclusion regarding such a claim. So it is not correct to say that such a claim is unknown to us.
And in general, it is impossible to prove anything in a completely independent way. Every proof depends on assumptions.
Therefore, I do not understand the question.
Discussion on Answer
With your own keyboard you pointed to the way to “prove” non-existence. I call that making a case for non-existence, not proving it.
Do you mean that even though it is impossible to prove logically that something does not exist, one can still talk about the probability that it does not exist?
The question comes up because of what I saw you answered Netai yesterday — whether it is possible to prove that something does not exist:
“I do not know of a proof that fairies do not exist, **and I can’t think of** such a proof.”
But according to what you said, that a proof depends on assumptions, you can freely assume Occam’s razor, and for someone who accepts that, he has evidence with probabilistic force, even if it is not logically necessary.