On proving the negative

[Gregadd]

One of the problems I face in my own is explaining to my client that a not guilty verdict is not proof of actual innocence. That is to say the governments failure to prove the positive is not proof of the negative
Proving actual innocence is difficult but not impossible. The use of DNA can prove innocence to a mathematical certainty. The prevalence of video cameras http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf been useful.

So the question is can we prove the negative?

This guy thinks we can.
http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

One of the problems I face in my own is explaining to my client that a not guilty verdict is not proof of actual innocence. That is to say the governments failure to prove the positive is not proof of the negative
Proving actual innocence is difficult but not impossible. The use of DNA can prove innocence to a mathematical certainty. The prevalence of video cameras http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf been useful.

So the question is can we prove the negative?

This guy thinks we can.
http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

Beyond a reasonable doubt? Absolutely. What I want to know is why you have to explain this to your clients. Do some not know if they're guilty? Do they believe, that even if they committed the crime, an innocent verdict makes them truly innocent?

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

Tim there is no innocent verdict. There are just guilty and not guilty. Meaning the government has sustained its burden or not. A lot of bad things can happen to you even if you are found not guilty.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim there is no innocent verdict. There are just guilty and not guilty. Meaning the government has sustained its burden or not. A lot of bad things can happen to you even if you are found not guilty.

So they're assuming, for example, that if found not guilty, they can't be sued in civil court?

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

So they're assuming, for example, that if found not guilty, they can't be sued in civil court?

Tim

That's for OJ And Casey. More like parole and probation revocation.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

That's for OJ And Casey. More like parole and probation revocation.

Interesting. So someone can have their parole revoked and go back to prison for being accused of a crime and being declared not guilty? You'd have to explain that to me too.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

interesting. So someone can have their parole revoked and go back to prison for being accused of a crime and being declared not guilty? You'd have to explain that to me too.

Tim

..the standard of proof at a probation revocation hearing is very different than at a criminal trial that requires proof of your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. At a probation revocation hearing, the court only has to find by a preponderance of the evidence[more likely than not] that you violated a condition of your probation. This means that the court only needs to find some evidence that probation was violated and it can be revoked.

Read more: What is a probation revocation hearing? | ehow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_6329209_probation-revocation-hearing_.html#ixzz1v1n7n3v1

Hearsay is admissible, as is illegally seized evidence.

 

[amirm]

This guy thinks we can.
http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

He is a professor at a university so let's not call him a guy . He made me think! Think of taking philosophy at college..... Wish you had post this on a week day so that I didn't have to think so hard on a weekend.

 

[amirm]

So do you believe in this?

"So why is it that people insist that you can’t prove a negative? I think it is the result of two things. (1) an acknowledgement that induction is not bulletproof, airtight, and infallible, and (2) a desperate desire to keep believing whatever one believes, even if all the evidence is against it. That’s why people keep believing in alien abductions, even when flying saucers always turn out to be weather balloons, stealth jets, comets, or too much alcohol. You can’t prove a negative! You can’t prove that there are no alien abductions! Meaning: your argument against aliens is inductive, therefore not incontrovertible, and since I want to believe in aliens, I’m going to dismiss the argument no matter how overwhelming the evidence against aliens, and no matter how vanishingly small the chance of extraterrestrial abduction.

If we’re going to dismiss inductive arguments because they produce conclusions that are probable but not definite, then we are in deep doo-doo. Despite its fallibility, induction is vital in every aspect of our lives, from the mundane to the most sophisticated science. Without induction we know basically nothing about the world apart from our own immediate perceptions. So we’d better keep induction, warts and all, and use it to form negative beliefs as well as positive ones. You can prove a negative — at least as much as you can prove"

 

[Gregadd]

I think those two paragraphs are OT.

 

[Gregadd]

So do you believe in this?

"So why is it that people insist that you can’t prove a negative? I think it is the result of two things. (1) an acknowledgement that induction is not bulletproof, airtight, and infallible, and (2) a desperate desire to keep believing whatever one believes, even if all the evidence is against it. That’s why people keep believing in alien abductions, even when flying saucers always turn out to be weather balloons, stealth jets, comets, or too much alcohol. You can’t prove a negative! You can’t prove that there are no alien abductions! Meaning: your argument against aliens is inductive, therefore not incontrovertible, and since I want to believe in aliens, I’m going to dismiss the argument no matter how overwhelming the evidence against aliens, and no matter how vanishingly small the chance of extraterrestrial abduction.

If we’re going to dismiss inductive arguments because they produce conclusions that are probable but not definite, then we are in deep doo-doo. Despite its fallibility, induction is vital in every aspect of our lives, from the mundane to the most sophisticated science. Without induction we know basically nothing about the world apart from our own immediate perceptions. So we’d better keep induction, warts and all, and use it to form negative beliefs as well as positive ones. You can prove a negative — at least as much as you can prove"

I think it makes sense.

 

[The Smokester]

The good professor can logically arrive at this conclusion by involking tertium non datur. Would that reality were so simple.