Uh, Ken, the issue of the difficulty in proving a negative in logic is not something I came up with in a dream. It is a common idea. Been around for, oh, centuries. You can check this out by using any major search engine and typing in terms like "proving" "negative" and "fallacy" etc.
Hakki wants me to "prove" a negative, in that he wants me to prove that the US and Mossad were NOT behind the Berlin disco bombing; and that Buck Revell was NOT involved in the Lockerbie jetliner bombing. But the burden of proof in logic is not on the person rejecticting the assertion, but on the one making the assertion. When I challenge the basis of Hakki's "facts" and show that they are false or disproven, or based on the research of fascist whackos, Hakki simply demands my evidence that what he says is not true. I cannot prove that negative. Thus Hakki's entire rhetorical style is illogical.
Your example using Hackensack is just wrong. I can always argue that through some secret electronic link Hakki may be at point A, but his transmission is sent to Hackensack, then bounced back to point A for retransmission. I can't prove that. But Hakki cannot prove that it is NOT true. Because everytime he offers a proof, I can negate it with another theory that needs to be disproved. It is infinite. That's why theories must be proven, not the other way around.
A central flaw in conspiracist logic is to make an unsupported assertion, then argue for its validity by challenging critics to dissprove it--prove the negative. This is what Hakki does, (see below) and it is a classic fallacy of logic.
= = =
Proving a Negative (from The Objectivist Newsletter, April 1963): "Proving the non-existence of that for which no evidence of any kind exists. Proof, logic, reason, thinking, knowledge pertain to and deal only with that which exists. They cannot be applied to that which does not exist. Nothing can be relevant or applicable to the non-existent. The non-existent is nothing. A positive statement, based on facts that have been erroneously interpreted, can be refuted--by means of exposing the errors in the interpretation of the facts. Such refutation is the disproving of a positive, not the proving of a negative.... Rational demonstration is necessary to support even the claim that a thing is possible. It is a breach of logic to assert that that which has not been proven to be impossible is, therefore, possible. An absence does not constitute proof of anything. Nothing can be derived from nothing."
= = =
-Chip
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Hanly" <khanly at mb.sympatico.ca> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 8:16 PM Subject: Re: A note to the exorcists
> Sorry I thought that Hakki not Chip made the remark about proving a
> negative. Anyway there is no logical difficulty with doing so that I see. Of
> the examples Chip gives are not that problematic. Surely there is lots of
> positive evidence that Hakki posts from where he posts--and I assume it is
> not Hackensack N.J. If that positive can proved then the same form I used
> earlier gives you:
> If Hakki posted from Hackensack NJ....then he did not post from
> x--where x is the place he did post from. But he did post from x therefore
> he did not post from Hackensack.
>
> If you want to be stubborn enough you can reject all the evidence for
> positive proposition such as the earth is round by making enough special
> assumptions.
>
> Cheers, Ken Hanly
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chip Berlet" <cberlet at igc.org>
> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 10:42 AM
> Subject: RE: A note to the exorcists
>
>
> > Hakki,
> >
> > Thanks for being so gracious.
> >
> > As for you comments below, it is the first rule of logical fallacies that
> > you cannot prove a negative.
> >
> > Go ahead and try:
> >
> > Prove that you do not work for the U.S. government as an agent tasked to
> > disrupt the left by spreading conspiracist theories.
> >
> > Prove that you are not really posting these messages from Hackensack, New
> > Jersey.
> >
> > Prove that the Libyan spy agency does not secretly own the Fox News
> Channel.
> >
> > Sigh...
> >
> > -Chip
> >
> >
> > > I suggest you contribute to the list by showing us your
> > > research. What have
> > > you got to offer that disproves the Interfor report? How can
> > > you prove that
> > > the holes in the case against the Libyans aren't there?
> > > Without evidence,
> > > your opinions are uninteresting.
> > >
> > > Hakki
> > >
> >
>