proving a negative point...

[Peter Kropotkin]

the challenge that is made around here is to "prove your point"....

but there seems to be some questions about that...

and I am here to solve your issues....

let us take try this.....

in a another post, Gloom I believe wants me to "prove"
that there is no conspiracy to commit fraud in this election....

the problem lies with trying to prove a "negative"....

How does one go about proving there was NO fraud in this
election? How does one go about proving a "negative?"

now one might say, there was massive fraud in Penn..
and the proof is ......... trucks or mail in ballots or whatever
fantasy you are peddling...but how would I go about "proving"
there was no election fraud? or to ask another question,
How would I go about to "prove" that there is no "god?"

or perhaps this, how would I go about "proving" that
there are no unicorns? or that there is no such thing
as the "loch ness monster?"

how does one go about proving something that doesn't exists?

If I say there is a "god" and I might say here is the evidence,
the world exists, and there is goodness and the bible exists...
all very bad reasons for proof that "god" exists, but at
least they are vague attempts to "prove" that "god" exists.....

the problem is a simple one, how does one go about "proving"
that something doesn't exist? How do we prove a negative?

How would I prove a negative?

Kropotkin

[phyllo]

Most things in life are not 'proved', they are 'shown'.

Shown that it is more reasonable to believe 'this' rather than 'that'.

The more limited the scope, the easier this is to achieve and the more confidence there is in the result. It's much easier to show that there are no unicorns in your living room, than it is to show that there are no unicorns in Pennsylvania. At the extreme end, it can't be shown that there are no unicorns in the universe.

Therefore, it's possible to show that there is no fraud or that there is fraud in a set of ballots.

And this is a two-way street ... it's not just up to you to show that there is no fraud while he sits back and does nothing. He is also required to show the fraud that he thinks is there.

[obsrvr524]

In this case every vote that was not validated by an observer is invalidated.

So whether you want to call that fraud or merely foul play, it is still illegal to count those votes.

How does one go about proving there was NO fraud in this
election? How does one go about proving a "negative?"

You do it with observers. That is why the law requires them to have access.

You "prove a negative" by having experience that shows the lack of presence.
You have to have the experience - the observer watching. And the observer watching has to see nothing but legitimacy. If there is nothing but legitimacy there can be no negative illegitimacy.

They call that "VALIDATION".

Science and courtrooms do it all the time.

How would you prove there is no dog in the room?
You go look - examine the evidence of no evidence to the contrary.

Doesn't Science prove negatives all the time by saying, "the theory is that I should measure 10 but when I tried it I measured 8 so the theory is proven wrong" - proof of a negative. They measure the contrary.

How do they prove that the defendant was not the killer? They prove that the defendant was somewhere else - witness of the contrary. They prove the contrary is true.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Just to go a bit philosophical there are many negatives that can be proven, in the colloquial sense of, 'prove'. The tricky area is determining whether one has strong evidence of evidence or mere absence of evidence. And those are generally better ways to frame such an issue.....

Since most positive assertions can be turned into negative ones.

I mean,for example 'You can't prove a negative.' is a negative assertion. Which means, it is not provable.

In any case in this instance is tricky to demonstrate well that nothing fishy went on.

Then you have to determine who has the burden of proof. How likely is serious enough electoral fraud in the US now? And what process demonstates that?

And it would seem a thorough analysis would have to demonstrate that both sides did not engage in fraud. Or the focus could be on cases of possible fraud and trying to determine if they are significant and well supported...BOTH.

And LO, amazingly everyone falls down on political lines. Liberals or anti-trumps are sure there is no significant fraud. Pro-Trumps are sure there is fraud.


Everyone is utterly sure and there is not bias in their position taking. And if the result had been different, the certainties would likely be reversed.

Proving a negative

A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something.[9] Claiming that it is impossible to prove a negative is a pseudologic, because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics, including Euclid's theorem, which proves that that there is no largest prime number, and Arrow's impossibility theorem. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.

A negative claim may or may not exist as a counterpoint to a previous claim. A proof of impossibility or an evidence of absence argument are typical methods to fulfill the burden of proof for a negative claim.[9][10]

Philosopher Steven Hales argues that typically one can logically be as confident with the negation of an affirmation. Hales says that if one's standards of certainty leads them to say "there is never 'proof' of non-existence", then they must also say that "there is never 'proof' of existence either". Hales argues that there are many cases where we may be able to prove something does not exist with as much certainty as proving something does exist.

In this case, voter fraud, proofs will be very hard to come by. Of course, it's not an appropriate goal, this not being math or symbolic logic. One can certainly make deductive and inductive arguments. But to make them well, man you gotta research your ass for a fucking long time.

[obsrvr524]

Observers are required by LAW so that evidence of no fraud (a negative) can be offered.

The winning issue is not whether there was or was not fraud even though there is ample evidence of that. The winning issue is that observers were not allowed, which invalidates a very large number of ballots.

[phyllo]

There were observers from both parties at the counts.

There were also independent observers who say that they did not witness fraud.

So if there is some specific location that they did not have access, then let's see what you have.

BERLIN — The head of an international delegation monitoring the U.S. election says his team has no evidence to support President Donald Trump's claims about alleged fraud involving mail-in absentee ballots.

Michael Georg Link, a German lawmaker who heads an observer mission of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, told German public broadcaster rbb Thursday that “on the election day itself, we couldn't see any violations” at the U.S. polling places they visited.

Link said he was “very surprised” by Trump's claims about postal ballot fraud because the United States has a long history of this method of voting going back to the 19th century.

“We looked into this. We found no violations of the rules whatsoever,” Link told rbb.

He said neither U.S. election observers nor media found any evidence of fraud either, though the OSCE team on Wednesday repeated long-standing concerns about disenfranchisement of some voters and the distorting effects of campaign finance laws.

Link said there were some instances of errors being made “but no systemic interference or even manipulation with the postal ballots whatsoever.”

Trump has for weeks argued that mail voting is prone to fraud. On Wednesday morning, with his lead in key battlegrounds slipping, Trump claimed efforts were being made to steal his victory and prematurely declared himself the winner.

“That is something that does need to be described as breaking a taboo,” Link said of Trump's effort to stop the count. “He has neither the right nor the possibility to do this. Responsibility for the count lies exclusively with states.”

The Vienna-based OSCE, of which the United States is a member, conducts observer missions at major elections in all of its member countries.

The Associated Press

[Karpel Tunnel]

Observers are required by LAW so that evidence of no fraud (a negative) can be offered.

The winning issue is not whether there was or was not fraud even though there is ample evidence of that. The winning issue is that observers were not allowed, which invalidates a very large number of ballots.

That seems like a potential strong argument. Could you link me to data? I think also, in fairness, it would need to be shown that there were observers in earlier elections and that this was different. Fair not so much in a legal sense, but in the outrage sense. For example, if observers were missing during the previous presidential election, then Trump's original win would invalid potentially. Now that doesn't mean that it's ok this time, it would just reduce, I think, a justified outrage factor.

And by the way, I think the system is rigged, though in a more open secret kind of way. So I am not dismissing things like voter fraud or systematic process problems.

[obsrvr524]

America is a little different in that they allow each State to set the rules. In the civilized democracies observation is very seriously respected and maintained.

In the USA --

Rules for Observers in Battleground States

States each have their own rules governing the observation of in-person voting, signature matching, mail ballot verification and ballot counting. This post covers rules for election observers in eight (loosely defined) battleground states: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

In-person voting election observers generally fall into one of two categories: party appointed or public. The majority of the battleground states—Arizona, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Pennsylvania—require poll observers to be appointed or nominated by a county or state party chair. One battleground state, Wisconsin, permits any member of the public to observe elections. And the two remaining battleground states, Michigan and Ohio, have both party-appointed observers and nonpartisan observers. Michigan has party-appointed poll challengers but the state’s poll watchers can be any member of the public. Ohio, by contrast, has poll watchers who are appointed by both political parties in addition to watchers appointed by ballot initiative committees, which are committees that are formed to support the passage of a legislative measure. But no matter the process, election observers—whether party appointed or members of the public—cannot promote candidates on the ballots, as that would violate state electioneering laws.

States also have differing requirements for observation of the signature matching and ballot verification processes. These rules vary in terms of party-appointed or public oversight. Some states appoint observers for these processes through political parties, others allow any member of the public to observe the process, and a few allow both public and party oversight. Regardless of the appointment process, the power of observers in each state varies greatly. Some state laws allow observers to challenge individual ballots while others permit observers only to observe signature and mail ballot verification.

Likewise, the battleground states have different policies governing oversight of the ballot counting process. Arizona and Georgia employ an oversight process by which poll watchers nominated by political parties can see the tabulation of ballots. Ohio appoints canvass observers by political party but also employs ballot initiative committees whose members are not always formed via the parties. And the majority of battleground states—Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin—use a public oversight process, in which any person can witness the tabulation of the ballots. Overall, states do not allow for poll watchers to interfere with the process; they can only observe.

PA Court Delivers ‘Big Legal Win’ To Trump, Mandates GOP Access To Ballot Counting

A court in Pennsylvania ruled on Thursday morning that GOP observers must be allowed to watch ballot counting across the state.

Observation is voluntary on the part of the observers, but not on the part of the ballot counters. So if in the past, observers did not try to observe, no laws were broken.

There are also Federal and International observers but they are usually an "after the fact" intervention and concerned with recounts.

[Meno_]

That is convincing, but the basic issue of truth versus fabrication remains. A fact, does not become accepted, until the negation of that fact convinces a jury of peers ,that within the context that it has occured, it is believable


This crux problem has followed the issues surrounding this administration all through the 4 years
Down to the wire, until now: Initially, the complaint has to be taken up by various courts and here again, opinions can vary.
The introduction of witnesses may present a problem as well, because the truthfulness of the observers may also account for a certain amount of doubt

The ultimate arbiter, the Supreme Court . even that body may be challenged publically as to their opinions., especially with the charge that they have been loaded.

The primary impressions are merely two contradictory opinions, one negating the other.

Usually the Judges have to use precedents in their arguments, and it is uncertain if there is one in this case.

[obsrvr524]

That is convincing, but the basic issue of truth versus fabrication remains. A fact, does not become accepted, until the negation of that fact convinces a jury of peers ,that within the context that it has occured, it is believable

The Supreme Court has no "jury of peers".

The ultimate arbiter, the Supreme Court . even that body may be challenged publically as to their opinions., especially with the charge that they have been loaded.

They can be critised, which preemptively counts to a degree, but they cannot be contested except by offering sufficient new evidence to warrant another review.

The primary impressions are merely two contradictory opinions, one negating the other.

Only to the public being controlled by the Propaganda Ministry (MSM in the US). Once the Supreme Court can be unpolitical (conservatives - conserving the Constitution), it can ignore "impressions".

[Ecmandu]

That is convincing, but the basic issue of truth versus fabrication remains. A fact, does not become accepted, until the negation of that fact convinces a jury of peers ,that within the context that it has occured, it is believable

The Supreme Court has no "jury of peers".

The ultimate arbiter, the Supreme Court . even that body may be challenged publically as to their opinions., especially with the charge that they have been loaded.

They can be critised, which preemptively counts to a degree, but they cannot be contested except by offering sufficient new evidence to warrant another review.

The primary impressions are merely two contradictory opinions, one negating the other.

Only to the public being controlled by the Propaganda Ministry (MSM in the US). Once the Supreme Court can be unpolitical (conservatives - conserving the Constitution), it can ignore "impressions".

Obsrvr, I know you’re intelligent - but! Almost every post you make is absurd. If Warren buffet, Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates strolled into the Supreme Court because the second amendment guarantees that they can buy 100 nuclear warheads with operational ballistic missiles and the Supreme Court rules against them, the Supreme Court is violating the constitution and should all be hanged pursuant to laws of the time. (Traitors).

So here’s the deal. The constitution is garbage. It’s toilet paper like the Bible is toilet paper.

We need to rewrite the whole fucking thing.

Lots of countries do that. France rewrites their constitution every 2 years (as a provision of their constitution).

What you suggest about defending toilet paper as eternal law is absurd.

[MagsJ]

_
Nepotism are they @fickwitz

[obsrvr524]

Obsrvr, I know you’re intelligent - but! Almost every post you make is absurd.

Then you must not know that I am intelligent. You contradict yourself.

If Warren buffet, Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates strolled into the Supreme Court because the second amendment guarantees that they can buy 100 nuclear warheads with operational ballistic missiles and the Supreme Court rules against them, the Supreme Court is violating the constitution and should all be hanged pursuant to laws of the time. (Traitors).

Not true.

The SCOTUS in supporting the US Second Amendment has the obligation to afford "the right to own and bear arms". But (because like most uncivilized countries) they did not define "arms", the SCOTUS must choose what falls into the intended meaning of that word as written. I am sure that nuclear weapons would not qualify. So by declaring that they do NOT have the inalienable right bear those weapons, they would not violate their oath.

So here’s the deal. The constitution is garbage. It’s toilet paper like the Bible is toilet paper. What you suggest about defending toilet paper as eternal law is absurd.

Coming from an admitted highly uneducated person, that statement merely reflects what is already a self-evident admission.

We need to rewrite the whole fucking thing.

By you? Sure why not.
You could propose that SAM co-op thing, but you would have to convince a very large portion of the population no matter what you proposed. Think you are up to it?

Lots of countries do that. France rewrites their constitution every 2 years (as a provision of their constitution).

And look where they are.

[Ecmandu]

_
Nepotism are they @fickwitz

I can interpret that bizarre reply about 15 ways.

I actually made a point. Maybe, for once on ILP, you can stop using argument from authority and actually make a post that has a real point.

Sure, I’ve stated I have a high IQ several times on this board (like many of us have) but it ultimately comes down to making an argument.

You talk about your health issues in terms of suffering, and you go on about how smart you are when the argument gets serious. That’s your MO.

I offer this to MagsJ and the board as a whole... show me one single post of hers where she said one profound thing.

[Ecmandu]

Obsrvr, I know you’re intelligent - but! Almost every post you make is absurd.

Then you must not know that I am intelligent. You contradict yourself.

If Warren buffet, Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates strolled into the Supreme Court because the second amendment guarantees that they can buy 100 nuclear warheads with operational ballistic missiles and the Supreme Court rules against them, the Supreme Court is violating the constitution and should all be hanged pursuant to laws of the time. (Traitors).

Not true.

The SCOTUS in supporting the US Second Amendment has the obligation to afford "the right to own and bear arms". But (because like most uncivilized countries) they did not define "arms", the SCOTUS must choose what falls into the intended meaning of that word as written. I am sure that nuclear weapons would not qualify. So by declaring that they do NOT have the inalienable right bear those weapons, they would not violate their oath.

So here’s the deal. The constitution is garbage. It’s toilet paper like the Bible is toilet paper. What you suggest about defending toilet paper as eternal law is absurd.

Coming from an admitted highly uneducated person, that statement merely reflects what is already a self-evident admission.

We need to rewrite the whole fucking thing.

By you? Sure why not.
You could propose that SAM co-op thing, but you would have to convince a very large portion of the population no matter what you proposed. Think you are up to it?

Lots of countries do that. France rewrites their constitution every 2 years (as a provision of their constitution).

And look where they are.

America is the most resource rich country on earth. Sure, our country started with progressive tones...

It was the combination of the two that made us a superior world player. Once you’re strong, you have a power advantage for a long time. The question ? Is it sustainable?

[obsrvr524]

[gvid][/gvid]

I offer this to MagsJ and the board as a whole... show me one single post of hers where she said one profound thing.

---

I personally think that it depends on how someone comes at a person and what with, as what one comes at others with might not be up to par for that person.. especially if it is a one-sided expectation of the other, and not formulated due to previous encounters in previous discussions.

Wins the prize.

I think it's true that if you are feeling frustrated, you aren't paying attention.

Is that "proving a negative"?

[Ecmandu]

[gvid][/gvid]

I offer this to MagsJ and the board as a whole... show me one single post of hers where she said one profound thing.

---

I personally think that it depends on how someone comes at a person and what with, as what one comes at others with might not be up to par for that person.. especially if it is a one-sided expectation of the other, and not formulated due to previous encounters in previous discussions.

Wins the prize.

I think it's true that if you are feeling frustrated, you aren't paying attention.

Is that "proving a negative"?

All her quote basically states is that continuity of consciousness is not remembered when someone approaches a debate on ILP with a concept that one side is correct. It doesn’t gauge growth by this measure of that quote (that people can change or they were misunderstood).

[obsrvr524]

All her quote basically states is that continuity of consciousness is not remembered when someone approaches a debate on ILP with a concept that one side is correct. It doesn’t gauge growth by this measure of that quote (that people can change or they were misunderstood).

That is not what she said so I guess the same negative is yet proven again. And "gauging growth" was not the point, so maybe even a third proof of the same negative?

[Magnus Anderson]

in a another post, Gloom I believe wants me to "prove"
that there is no conspiracy to commit fraud in this election....

I believe it was me and that it was related to COVID-19.

the problem lies with trying to prove a "negative"....

[..]

How would I prove a negative?

I can think of many negatives that can easily be proven e.g. "There are no square-circles".

If you want to prove that no unicorns exist within certain portion of spacetime, you have to observe every part of that spacetime. If it's impractical to observe it in its entirety, you can at least observe a portion of it and generalize from that. Ultimately, you will either observe unicorns or you won't. The same applies to conspiracies (whether they are related to COVID-19 or US presidential election.)

I am not sure who came up with the idea that "You can't prove a negative" but it's sure as hell a convenient way to place the burden of proof on everyone other than yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something.[9] Claiming that it is impossible to prove a negative is a pseudologic, because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics, including Euclid's theorem, which proves that that there is no largest prime number, and Arrow's impossibility theorem. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.

Whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.

If you're going to adopt a position, you better have a rationale backing it up. Otherwise, you have to refrain from adopting a position.

If you're going to say "There is a conspiracy!", you better be able to prove it. But also, if you're going to say "There is no conspiracy!", you also better be able to prove that. Otherwise, you have to take a neutral stance and say "I don't know, let's see".

(Basically, I agree with what phyllo and obsrvr524 said.)

[obsrvr524]

And I forgot to mention, concerning breaking federal and constitutional law --

In the United States, Election Day is the annual day set by law for the general elections of federal public officials. It is statutorily set by the Federal Government as "the Tuesday next after the first Monday in the month of November" equaling the Tuesday occurring within November 2 to November 8. For federal offices and most gubernatorial offices, Election Day occurs only in even-numbered years.

That alone invalidates most of the contested ballots. They are prima facie fraudulent in ALL States.

[Ecmandu]

And I forgot to mention, concerning breaking federal and constitutional law --

In the United States, Election Day is the annual day set by law for the general elections of federal public officials. It is statutorily set by the Federal Government as "the Tuesday next after the first Monday in the month of November" equaling the Tuesday occurring within November 2 to November 8. For federal offices and most gubernatorial offices, Election Day occurs only in even-numbered years.

That alone invalidates most of the contested ballots. They are prima facie fraudulent in ALL States.

And again, the constitution is toilet paper, like I said before.

Life has changed massively since 1776!!

The constitution doesn’t even allow for amendments (we just made that shit up). Even our amendments are toilet paper (not all of them)

Negatives can easily be proven: god exists and god is good. Every being in existence is having their consent violated except god. That’s not a good god. That’s the most maniacly evil being possible. If god is defined as good, and every being is having their consent violated (the only definition of bad) and god could have made it differently, and god is defined as good, then we can easily prove god doesn’t exist.

It’s not very complicated.

[obsrvr524]

It might be mere toilet paper to you, but to the armed forces of your nation, it is the Law. If you don't believe that~~~

[Ecmandu]

It might be mere toilet paper to you, but to the armed forces of your nation, it is the Law. If you don't believe that~~~

You’re insane. Now you’re trying to pull the “unpatriotic armed forces” card on me...

The preamble has “provide for the common defense” written Right there!!! I wouldn’t change the preamble.

Just like there might be two good sentences in the Bible - there is good stuff in the constitution, but!!! It’s basically toilet paper for our modern era.

You keep avoiding my argument about how to get all Supreme Court justices hung by the letter of the law of the actual constitution!!!

You know why? Because you know it’s a fact and you’re full of shit.

[Meno_]

Like they say it's way to start far afield. The thing is maybe even more multiferious than that. To start with something which may raise eyebrows, it is probable that fraud is committed left and right in ant general election to a degree.

I have sewn one, almost unpreceptible in the Gore vs Bush election.

The thing is, all administrations of short duration , max
8 years, whereas there are big time bosses out there with interminable claims to power.

To these presidents are held accountable.There may be some kind of super play here, and they can play this for a few more months. By that time things will calm. up, and even some kind of power- trade- detente can be established.

The negation is only appearent on the only public understanding of it, so that is why the cintuniuum must keep rolling along.

There is far more to this than meets the eye, and we are simply not prevy to this.

[MagsJ]

Nepotism are they @fickwitz

..and you go on about how smart you are when the argument gets serious. That’s your MO.

..how I deal with an outed misogynist, that only knows how to operate through the blinkered eyes and mind of misogyny.

It works for me, so not at my detriment.. only a fickwitz would expect it to be counter-so, and I certainly don’t operate from a place of appealing from my ex-ILP authority but from appealing from my own authority. How very misogynistically-minded indeed.

I offer this to MagsJ and the board as a whole... show me one single post of hers where she said one profound thing.

---

MagsJ said: “I personally think that it depends on how someone comes at a person and what with, as what one comes at others with might not be up to par for that person.. especially if it is a one-sided expectation of the other, and not formulated due to previous encounters in previous discussions”.
_____
Wins the prize.

I think it's true that if you are feeling frustrated, you aren't paying attention.

Is that "proving a negative"?

All her quote basically states is that continuity of consciousness is not remembered when someone approaches a debate on ILP with a concept that one side is correct. It doesn’t gauge growth by this measure of that quote (that people can change or they were misunderstood).

That is not what she said so I guess the same negative is yet proven again. And "gauging growth" was not the point, so maybe even a third proof of the same negative?

I’m not sure why my statement needed an interpretation? an interpretation which seems like pure projection.

The exchange that I had mentioned that observation in and which my statement was taken from, never got to progress beyond the initial stage of the inquiry, due to a preempting that something may reoccur that had happened in previous exchanges, on the matter of clarity of definitions.