Duh, but you believe in da government

I've never understood why some claim that a negative can't be proved. On the one hand, that claim--itself being negative--then can't be proved, for it is self-referentially defeating. On the other hand, the quality of a claim (i.e.,. affirmative or negative) is a feature of the claim rather than of the proposition claimed. So, for example, "All men are mortal" is affirmative while "No men are immortal" is negative; but they are claiming the very same proposition; so to prove one is to prove the other. And the same is the case for any affirmative claim and its obverse. That is, if there is an unprovable negative claim then its obverse is an unprovable affirmative claim. If you think I'm mistaken on this, please explain where I went wrong! Thanks.

@Wallace Come on, now. You're the philosophy professor. Answer your own question. (Are they really the same proposition? Is there no difference between them?)

@racocn8 Yes, the self-same proposition is just "stated in other words." One difference you point to is the difference of the words, and it could even be a difference of entire languages (German, French, etc.) But there could be no translation if each difference of utterance asserted a different proposition. But I brought up that point in the earlier post in the attempt to show that the "folk-logic" that negatives cannot be proved is simply false. This has been known since the time of Aristotle, and included in every introduction to logic textbook are numerous proofs of negatives. Of course, one could confirm it by a Google search or by questioning an artificial intelligence program.

@Wallace Per Google: "Negative claims are statements that assert the non-existence or exclusion of something." Claims are typically made within a textual and/or social context. As the claim is conveyed in words, the tacit understanding is that the words have the same meaning to the recipients. The context may well modify the actual or intended meaning. Claiming that negatives cannot be proved is an example of ""folk-logic"" uses the ad hominem (fallacy) term to disparage the subject claiming negatives cannot be proved. "It is possible to prove rather specific negative claims that are made with rather well defined limits. If the area to be searched is well defined and of a reasonable size that permits searching then a negative claim might be capable of being proven."

Many imaginary things don't and never existed, so no evidence can prove their existence, nor disprove their non-existence. As soon as evidence comes to light, the subject ceases to remain qualified as imaginary/negative. That is why a negative claim cannot be proved. Proof means the provision of evidence to the judging authority. That authority then makes the subjective claim that the evidence is legitimate and relevant, based on inductive processes of their subjective experience.

Subjectively and inductively, evidence would render the subject as real and not imaginary. That is why evidence, i.e. relics like the Shroud of Turin get investigated for authenticity. For subjects whose existence is doubted, evidence exists or it doesn't. For the Shroud, c14 dating yields an age that, in the context of induction about how time works, presents a very high confidence interval as not overlapping with the purported interval of the demigod.

What becomes the meaning of the word 'prove'. What or who is the arbiter of proof, much less evidence? Philosophers make the claim that you can prove a negative via induction as well as you can prove anything else. Except that there are different kinds qualities and limits of inductive reasoning. And again, such reasoning works only where meanings are shared.

At last philosophy glimpses the mechanism of science where, when possible, probabilities are used to establish the likelihood of truth. Induction is grasped as fallible, so truth gets a percentage to suggest how reliable the finding or claim is.

FYI
6 Types of Inductive Reasoning
There are a few key types of inductive reasoning.

1. Generalized. This is the simple example given above, with the white swans. It uses premises about a sample set to draw conclusions about a whole population.
2. Statistical. This form uses statistics based on a large and random sample set, and its quantifiable nature makes the conclusions stronger. For example: “95% of the swans I’ve seen on my global travels are white, therefore 95% of the world’s swans are white.”
3. Bayesian. This is a method of adapting statistical reasoning to take into account new or additional data. For instance, location data might allow a more precise estimate of the percentage of white swans.
4. Analogical. This form notes that on the basis of shared properties between two groups, they are also likely to share some further property. For example: “Swans look like geese and geese lay eggs, therefore swans also lay eggs.”
5. Predictive. This type of reasoning draws a conclusion about the future based on a past sample. For instance: “There have always been swans on the lake in past summers, therefore there will be swans this summer.”
6. Causal inference. This type of reasoning includes a causal link between the premise and the conclusion. For instance: “There have always been swans on the lake in summer, therefore the start of summer will bring swans onto the lake.”
   [masterclass.com]

@racocn8 I agree with (most of) that--with the contention that inductive reasoning can prove some negatives but one must be careful not to err in the reasoning process. What I had in mind was deductive examples that were simpler but proved the point. (Of course, one must not err here either.) Aristotle gave 16 examples of such categorical syllogisms, including:
No M are P and All S are M, so No S are P and
NO are M and Some S are M, so Some S are not P.
Also in propositional logic there is Modus Tollens form, which is
If P then Q and it is not the case that Q, so it isi not the case that P.
These, and infinitely (?) many other logically valid forms have negative conclusions and provide counter examples to the "folk logic" under question.
What bothered me about the Goggle response (if I understood it) was the claim that it is an ad hominem fallacy to call folk-logic "folk-logic," although I see how it could be used that way. That if one disputant says "Your position is nothing but folk-logic," it abandons whatever the issue is at hand in favor of a personal put down. Peace.

I think perhaps your estimate of only 5,000 years is a tad mingy....unless, because Baal was mentioned in the Babble that makes him/it real, lol???

1..have you spoken to or read the complete thoughts of everyone who has lived in the last 5000 years?

2. As you could not have spoken or read the complete thoughts of everyone living in the last 50 years let alone 5000 it is irrelevant that the evidence is falsified or not!

3. I agree with your conclusion contained in your final sentence