Is it?<quoted text>
Lol. So you start by saying a negative is only a description, it's defined only by a positive.....
Then one could never present the negative with out first proving the positive. But you can't prove the positive exists with out a negative.
It's a dead end argument......
So is science based on a dead argument? After all it is scientific principle that a science cannot be based on a negative.
I know that negative and positive support each other. Its you that must justify the sudden and radical change in your thought on a principle that is fundamental to science.
By the way, did you reach your conclusion of "dead argument" by way of consensus or is it just your subjective (more accurately "subjected") observation?