Negative facts get a bad press. One reason for this is that it is not clear what negative facts are. We provide a theory of negative facts on which they are no stranger than positive atomic facts. We show that none of the usual arguments hold water against this account. Negative facts exist in the usual sense of existence and conform to an acceptable Eleatic principle. Furthermore, there are good reasons to want them around, including their roles in causation, chance-making and truth-making, and in constituting holes and edges.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Barker et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: