No, AK, I'm not intentionally trying to pick on you...... kinda think of this as a situation where you uttered my magic word (or catchphrase) of the day.....unbeknownst to you, confetti and baloons just dropped from the ceiling and a flashing light siren is going off...... have been wanting to ask this question a long time. You seem like somebody reasonable enough to take a whack at briefly explaining why it is that people in general seem to be okay with the notion/convention that negatives are inherently unprovable, with the unspoken implication being that positives are inherently provable. It just seems to me that the axiom and conventions as such are inadequate; "positives are frequently as difficult to prove as negatives" seems more realistic.
A simple specimen: _____ did happen V _____ did not happen. I'd really like to understand the dynamic that explains how those three tiny letters cause the former to be availed abundantly with proof while the latter is utterly lacking of same.
FWIW, I'm asking this in the broader sense, not just in the context of how it/not it may apply to the topic of zapper testing. In the broader sense, I certainly agree that the task of proving, or not, is dependent on how the blank gets filled in, coupled with the conventions that establish what we accept/define as proof. To whom / for whom is it to be proven? also seems to be a potentially significant variable.
Thanks for playing and for your troubles you will receive a home version of this game ;)