In the Spotlight titled "Proof is Framing the Question", Courtney talks about the subjective nature of proof.
➡️ https://www.farsightprime.com/featured/videos/farsight-spotlight-26january2025-proof-vimeo
But there's one problem with that: He only talks about "positive proof", while ignoring "negative proof" completely. If you are not familiar with the concepts of positive and negative proof, here's a short explanation:
1. Positive proof is what most people think proof is: It's based in the scientific method, which means to start with a conjecture and then gather evidence in order to prove the conjecture correct or incorrect. For example, you assume that there will be a total solar eclipse in Spain on August 12, 2026, because of your knowledge of how celestial bodies move within the solar system. You then collect the evidence by observing the sun at that day. If you see a total solar eclipse, it's proof that your conjecture was correct.
2. Negative proof on the other hand is logical proof what something is NOT. Most people are not aware of this concept although they use it all the time. Negative proof is the process of elimination by comparing evidence with already known patterns. For example, you see something flying in the sky. Is it a bird? It is not. Is it a plane? It is not. In doing that, you prove that whatever is flying in the sky is neither a bird nor a plane. You don't know what it is, but you know what it is not.
And here's why this is so important: While positive proof only delivers probabilities, as the evidence could be insufficient, negative proof delivers certainty. You can be 100% certain what something is not.
This concept is also called "apophatic inquiry", and it's crucial when it comes to knowing rights:
➡️ https://www.farsightprime.com/forums/general/72111-understanding-natural-law