Bud, we’re saying there is lack of positive knowledge. Chill.

Why chatgpt will replace you

“If the positive cannot be proven, then the negative must be true” is a classic logical mistake called an argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance).

Why it’s wrong

Just because something hasn’t been proven true doesn’t mean it’s false. It may simply mean:

There isn’t enough evidence yet.

The tools to test it don’t exist yet.

The claim is unfalsifiable.

Likewise, not being able to prove something false doesn’t make it true.

Simple Example

Claim: “There is intelligent life somewhere else in the universe.”

We cannot currently prove this is true.

But that doesn’t mean the negative is automatically true (“There is no intelligent life anywhere else”).

We simply don’t know yet.

Another Example

Claim:

“There are 100 trillion stars in the observable universe.”

If someone can’t prove that exact number, it doesn’t mean the opposite number is true. It just means the claim isn’t established.

What’s logically correct?

In formal reasoning, the correct position when something cannot be proven is:

The claim remains unproven.

It does not automatically flip to the opposite. When can the negative be assumed?

There’s one important exception:

In law and science, the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.

For example:

In court: if guilt cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt → the verdict is “not guilty.”

(Not the same as “innocent,” but the negative position is adopted procedurally.)

But that’s a rule of decision-making, not a rule of logic.