Presumption is negative. Burden of proof falls on the affirmative.
Why? Because if presumption was affirmative, we'd have to prove negatives to rebut it. And you can't prove a negative. QED.
Why? Because if presumption was affirmative, we'd have to prove negatives to rebut it. And you can't prove a negative. QED.
Actually, what you can't do is prove that you can't prove a statement. But this is from Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem. I don't know how this is related to statistics.
Formal logic != statistics.
Thank you for degrading the conversation with your sophomoric pedantry, which is easily mitigated by appeal to the comparably vast wisdom of Yahoo Answers:
Quote
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110307170939AA7BPmy
It is short hand for a much more logical expression.
Which is, "You cannot prove a universal, existential negative."
In other words, you cannot prove that some hypothetical does not exist, anywhere in the universe, because that would require that you be able to look everywhere at the same moment. And, of course, if the hypothetical something, in question is claimed to be invisible and undetectable by any means, in principle, it gets even sillier to attempt to disprove that hypothetical's existence.
But saying all that, over and over gets really tiring, so most people just shorten it to, "You cannot prove a negative." and go on to do something more productive with their time.
It is short hand for a much more logical expression.
Which is, "You cannot prove a universal, existential negative."
In other words, you cannot prove that some hypothetical does not exist, anywhere in the universe, because that would require that you be able to look everywhere at the same moment. And, of course, if the hypothetical something, in question is claimed to be invisible and undetectable by any means, in principle, it gets even sillier to attempt to disprove that hypothetical's existence.
But saying all that, over and over gets really tiring, so most people just shorten it to, "You cannot prove a negative." and go on to do something more productive with their time.
You don't get to count agnostic/DGAF votes in the pro-fork column. They are functionally equivalent to anti votes, because all reject (whether actively or passively) Gavin's BloatCoin proposition, and thus affirm (implicitly or explicitly) status quo.
I hope you never serve on a jury. The other jurors would have to put up with your idiotic claims that voting not-guilty affirms guilt, just because they didn't vote 'innocent.'
