>>11276981The only reason you find it "provocative" is you have an emotional attachment (due to familiarity, conditioning, and what have you) to a way of thinking which is illogical. It's actually very simple.
-If someone makes a statement regarding the way of things, the burden of proof, providing evidence to make his case and so forth, is on him. This is obvious.
-If someone responds however by saying "that's false", this itself is a claim, and the burden of proof moves up the chain so to speak, it becomes a shared matter. Both are now making claims about reality which they cannot prove.
-So ultimately you can say "I don't know, but I don't think that's correct" and it's fine. But you cannot state it's false because it is not true. That doesn't make sense.
>But you can't prove a negative!Of course you can. For example, I'm pretty broke. I do not have money, it's not there. I can prove it. I can look everywhere systematically for money and have, within that search space, it become apparent that money is not there. In some cases you can use a theoretical framework to prove that given some other parameters, or relative to some starting state, a certain thing (likely) cannot be true.
You can't get around this without invoking something more solipsistic, or something which states memory and the senses are untrustable.
That's just the way it is. I'm not a flat earther but I will tend to troll globe earthers and anyone else who claims they know things they do not know, or makes claims they cannot back up. "That's not true" is one such claim, and you shall be held to account.
