Back in my day the first lesson learned in geometry was:
It is impossiible to prove a negative.
It was pounded into us over & over again (What can I say: we were 10th graders. facts didn't always stick.) I was never great in math, but I have never forgotten that, as it applies to so many aspects of our lives.
Dumbing down America has done wonders for the media as it helps them lead the masses. Case in point:
"President Bush to this day has offered no proof he was not AWOL."
Because very few people know this simple fact it is so easy to manipulate the masses. The game is get the accusation out there put the burden of proving the negative on the subject.
and
Protect the Bill of Rights>Back in my day the first lesson learned in geometry was:
It is impossiible to prove a negative.
It was pounded into us over & over again
[...]Dumbing down America has done wonders for the media as it helps them lead the masses.
No offense, but it sounds like the dumbing down started before you two reached 10th grade or Logic 101. ;-)
While I'm being a wisecracker, should I point out that "You can't prove a negative" is inherently an unsupportable statement...since it's a negative itself!
The fact is, many negatives are easily prove via contradiction or other means. For example, we can prove that there are no rational numbers equal to the square root of 2.
Couldn't the geometry teacher figure out how to prove that a circle was not a square?
What Logic 101 instructor wouldn't know
If A, then B.
Not B.
Therefore, not A.
But most importantly, it would be an extremely unwise policy to require "proof" before action. Funny, many people who didn't require proof of WMD in Iraq now ask for it regarding climate change. "Proving" that private retirement savings wouldn't do worse than Social Security returns shouldn't be a requirement before supporting them. Anyone who leaves his house has made conclusions without proof.
One thing I heartily agree with, though, is the handle of "Protect the Bill of Rights". :-)