Skip to main content

View Diary: DOJ Dread Exposed: Destruction of AT&T (260 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I saw the Glenn Greenwald article... (0+ / 0-)
    ...that confirms your thesis.

    You were right and I was wrong: I apologize.

    After I read "[they] cannot prove that they did not (enable the surveillance)", it raised a red flag and I went into hyper-critical mode.  

    Please refrain from using the inability to prove a negative in your arguments.

    Proving a negative isn't always impossible.  Proving a negative is always exculpatory  evidence, however failure to prove it means nothing.

    Here is an example of why it's wrong:

    Can you prove that you're not a child molester? How would you go about proving it?  You could present reams of evidence demonstrating that you have healthy sexual appetite, but none of it would prove that you're not a child molester.

    When someone has an alibi for something, proving that they weren't at a given place at a given time, they prove a negative by presenting affirmative evidence of an exclusionary state: they can prove they were someplace else at the time of a given incident.

    However, the inability to present an alibi does not prove guilt.  Alibi's are used as exclusionary evidence, like DNA.  The inability to exclude one's self via DNA evidence is not evidence of guilt, while the the ability to exclude one's self in this way is evidence of innocence.

    While providing conclusive evidence of one's innocence proves that one is innocent, it does not follow that failure to provide such evidence proves any guilt at the child molestation question.

    -5.75 -4.72 3.14159 2.71828

    by xynz on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 04:43:14 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site