ike wrote:
As a more philosophical point, using your definition of proof, the issue has nothing to do with the supposed (and often wrong) assertion that you can’t prove a negative. Even if the issue were proof of a positive, eg, that you are employed, how would you provide mathematical or scientific proof that you have a job? Your alleged employer could be lying. The paperwork could be wrong. You might be showing up to the office as a volunteer. You might have been fired or retired since the evidence was created.To that point, yes, but they have established the rules to prove income (job) that is my income tax standard, they do not care, nor ask for Proof of income or employment, they simply ask for tax form. If instead of asking for Proof of not having said, they would have said fill out this from sign and sign it (Notarized?) We would not be having the discussion. They seem to only want the higher standard of Proof for the negative.
With a BS in applied Math, and MS in applied statistic, I am well versed in "proofs". There are 2 instances of quick traps, 1) you can't prove a negative, so you must flip the question, and prove the positive therefore disproving the negative. And in probability questions, its often easier to find the opposite side of what they ask, then do 100%- that answer. (dice game, you roll 10 6 sided dice, you win if you get all 3s and 1 4, whats the probability you lose? -- much easier to calculate the odds of a win and subtract that figure out all the losing possibilities - simple example, they do a better job of hiding it, but it was to long ago to recall) just realized, those 2 things are actually 1. To prove a negative, you need show that in no such case can/did it happen, which means you need to show infinite situations. As where when proving the positive, I just have to show once, or for n=1, 2 and x if its that kind of proof. so minimizing the events trying to be evaluate.
But yes Ike, even proving a positive can be very hard, and why many concepts still theories and not laws, cause well everyone agrees, it walks like a duck and talks like a duct, just no one has been able to prove its a duck.
Yes, there is a legal standard for proof, a economics' standard for proof, and a math / science standard. (often in the math and science world replication of test results but other labs, is sufficiency of proof of a positive. But no scientist will every prove there is not life on other planets (only will disprove it by finding life). I don't know and wont guess, at the school's standard of proof for no job/income.
Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.