If you are serious about your argument, I will demonstrate to you the fallacies in your argumentation.
"Why unicorns?"
Irrelevant.
"Do you believe in them?"
Irrelevant.
"Hm, that's strange."
Irrelevant.
"You use them as an example of a creature that doesn't exist."
I made an assertion, you are assuming it is true.
"Why would you think that?"
Irrelevant. Address the statement itself.
"Perhaps because they don't exist, and there are reasons to believe they are mythological as opposed to a viable hypothesis?"
You are in agreement with the assertion, despite the lack of evidence. Reasons to believe something is not the same as proof of whether something is true or not.
"Keep in mind that 'proof' as a logical proposition does admit of negative assertions. [There is no algorithm which can determine the distance between primary numbers]."
This statement is nonsensical because proof in and of itself is not a logical proposition. An assertion, whether it is positive or negative, is a logical proposition.
"Sure you can generate some hypothesis with no evidence"
Agree, never made an argument to say otherwise.
"which, other than being contrary to our knowledge of biology and whose mythological roots are understood to some extent."
This statement still does not prove anything. It doesn't confirm the original statement as true and does not demonstrate the positive statement as false. Logically only the positive statement of "unicorns exist" can be proven to be true, because the absence of evidence is not proof of anything.
"In a legal sense, 'guilty until proven innocent' is not a perfect guide to epistemology. It is, rather, a rule of thumb which, theoretically, puts a brake on the impulse to decide that a person is guilty by virtue of accusation. It is more of a social and psychological precept than a scientific one."
I assume you meant innocent until proven guilty and that notion came about because it is based on the rationale I am attempting to convey to you now. That principle relies on proving a positive assertion to be true. Such a positive assertion such as Mike Pence is a pedophile can only ever be proven to be true. The opposite negative statement of Mike Pence is not a pedophile, which would be the counter argument, cannot be proven true, as the statement itself presupposes an absence of evidence. This court case would simply be the refutation of the evidence proving the positive assertion.
"Again, I apologize to you too for being snarky. I got up on the wrong side of the bed today. In any case, I didn't smash through the brick wall beside my bed, but I would imagine you already know that negative somehow."
I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are being serious. So I addressed you seriously.
"Beliefs that some thing are or are not the case are basic elements of human reason.
I agree, however my entire argument is about a logical framework from which you could use to arrive at a reasonable conclusion.
"Also, You appear to be conflating "proof" as a logical inference and "proof" as in empirical inferences. These are distinct. In both cases you're incorrect."
I think you are mistaken, I have in no way attempted to prove or infer anything empirically. Can you point to an example of where I have, because I don't see one. Also your point about conflating proof and inference is strange, you have to prove something to infer a conclusion. It would seem you are arguing against yourself here when I have maintained that you can't prove a negative and I have not attempted to do so, while you have affirmed that a negative statement can be proven without interacting with the positive.
"Yes we demonstrate that some things are not the case as an empirical matter [eg. The world is flat] and yes we prove in a logical sense as in modus ponens."
The modus ponens only applies once you have proven a positive statement as true, therefore you can infer that the negative statement is false. It doesn't work the other way around. For instance the positive statement of the world is a globe has been proven to be true empirically, therefore any other statement that would contradict this is false.
"Incidentally, in some jurisdictions, in some situations the burden of proof is reversed. I know this because I have had to prove that I was innocent in a court of law. I was successful."
Right, I can probably show you that logical framework I put forward still applied in your case. For example say you are accused of murder, and the presumption is guilty until proven innocent. The positive statement against you is that you are the murderer and the evidence provided to support that is your shirt was found at the crime scene, you dispute the statement by providing an alibi that you were at your friends house with 5 other people who will testify to that fact and their is also a timestamped video recording of you at the same time the victim was murdered.
It may seem like you are proving a negative, but you are in actuality disproving the positive statement. That's my whole point, that's what I have attempted to demonstrate to you.
You really want to engage in sophistry to save face for a clearly stupid thing to say?
Go right ahead.
If you are serious about your argument, I will demonstrate to you the fallacies in your argumentation.
"Why unicorns?"
Irrelevant.
"Do you believe in them?"
Irrelevant.
"Hm, that's strange."
Irrelevant.
"You use them as an example of a creature that doesn't exist."
I made an assertion, you are assuming it is true.
"Why would you think that?"
Irrelevant. Address the statement itself.
"Perhaps because they don't exist, and there are reasons to believe they are mythological as opposed to a viable hypothesis?"
You are in agreement with the assertion, despite the lack of evidence. Reasons to believe something is not the same as proof of whether something is true or not.
"Keep in mind that 'proof' as a logical proposition does admit of negative assertions. [There is no algorithm which can determine the distance between primary numbers]."
This statement is nonsensical because proof in and of itself is not a logical proposition. An assertion, whether it is positive or negative, is a logical proposition.
"Sure you can generate some hypothesis with no evidence"
Agree, never made an argument to say otherwise.
"which, other than being contrary to our knowledge of biology and whose mythological roots are understood to some extent."
This statement still does not prove anything. It doesn't confirm the original statement as true and does not demonstrate the positive statement as false. Logically only the positive statement of "unicorns exist" can be proven to be true, because the absence of evidence is not proof of anything.
"In a legal sense, 'guilty until proven innocent' is not a perfect guide to epistemology. It is, rather, a rule of thumb which, theoretically, puts a brake on the impulse to decide that a person is guilty by virtue of accusation. It is more of a social and psychological precept than a scientific one."
I assume you meant innocent until proven guilty and that notion came about because it is based on the rationale I am attempting to convey to you now. That principle relies on proving a positive assertion to be true. Such a positive assertion such as Mike Pence is a pedophile can only ever be proven to be true. The opposite negative statement of Mike Pence is not a pedophile, which would be the counter argument, cannot be proven true, as the statement itself presupposes an absence of evidence. This court case would simply be the refutation of the evidence proving the positive assertion.
"Again, I apologize to you too for being snarky. I got up on the wrong side of the bed today. In any case, I didn't smash through the brick wall beside my bed, but I would imagine you already know that negative somehow."
I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are being serious. So I addressed you seriously.
"Beliefs that some thing are or are not the case are basic elements of human reason.
I agree, however my entire argument is about a logical framework from which you could use to arrive at a reasonable conclusion.
"Also, You appear to be conflating "proof" as a logical inference and "proof" as in empirical inferences. These are distinct. In both cases you're incorrect."
I think you are mistaken, I have in no way attempted to prove or infer anything empirically. Can you point to an example of where I have, because I don't see one. Also your point about conflating proof and inference is strange, you have to prove something to infer a conclusion. It would seem you are arguing against yourself here when I have maintained that you can't prove a negative and I have not attempted to do so, while you have affirmed that a negative statement can be proven without interacting with the positive.
"Yes we demonstrate that some things are not the case as an empirical matter [eg. The world is flat] and yes we prove in a logical sense as in modus ponens."
The modus ponens only applies once you have proven a positive statement as true, therefore you can infer that the negative statement is false. It doesn't work the other way around. For instance the positive statement of the world is a globe has been proven to be true empirically, therefore any other statement that would contradict this is false.
"Incidentally, in some jurisdictions, in some situations the burden of proof is reversed. I know this because I have had to prove that I was innocent in a court of law. I was successful."
Right, I can probably show you that logical framework I put forward still applied in your case. For example say you are accused of murder, and the presumption is guilty until proven innocent. The positive statement against you is that you are the murderer and the evidence provided to support that is your shirt was found at the crime scene, you dispute the statement by providing an alibi that you were at your friends house with 5 other people who will testify to that fact and their is also a timestamped video recording of you at the same time the victim was murdered.
It may seem like you are proving a negative, but you are in actuality disproving the positive statement. That's my whole point, that's what I have attempted to demonstrate to you.