Also, yes, you absolutely can prove a negative under certain conditions. For example, if the entirety of the system is known with all the parameters. If it's a closed system with few parameters, proving a negative is a breeze!
For example, rolling three die and claiming "there's no 2 rolled among them", since you know which three numbers came up, you would be able to claim this with 100% certainty.
You're not proving a negative with your example. You’re reporting on an observed static phenomenon as in an observable and verifiable factual occurrence.
In a closed system with known parameters (i.e. there are three standard six sided dice with the numbers 1 through 6 represented by patterned dots on the same faces of each die relative to the position of numbers) you can’t prove a negative because there aren’t any (i.e. roll a 19) because you’d need to introduce a factor or variable outside the system in order to encounter it.
However, within the system you can accurately calculate stastistical probabilities - or odds. Even the extremely unlikely occurrence of all three dice simultaneously landing and sticking on a corner point (so there’s no numeric roll outcome) can be factored for.
When testing samples there’s always one more piece to test. So the way to get around testing everything out to infinity - which is the only place where you can have absolute certitude since every possible outcome is known because it already happened - you need to determine the size of your sample batch to be reasonably sure that the sample accurately represents every single member in the set you’re testing, such that you can establish a very strong statistical correlation (or confidence in your conclusions) to offer it as a true and accurate statement of fact.
And there are mathematical tools that let you calculate how big your sample size needs to be. Most times it needs to be a lot larger than you’d think it would.
So here’s the thing…from a scientific perspective, maybe the body wood on a slab type solidbody instrument has a major effect on tone. There’s lots of anecdotal evidence to suggest it does. And lots to suggest its role is extremely minor (as in all three dice stabding in their corners) to the point of being immaterial.
Luthiers, collectors, dealers, owners of certain instruments, and those who believe in the various assertions that fall under the collective label “tonewood” have a vested (i.e. financial and ego) interest in believing it to be true.
Those of us more curious about the how and why of body wood vis-a-vis slab type solidbody instruments have a different perspective.
The first group is interested in what seems to work. And to be a little blunt, what sells. The second group is focused on why it (supposedly) works. There’s no need for hurt feelings or heat unless you’re the sort of person who doesn’t like to have your statements questioned.
So if I asked a luthier why a certain bass sounded so good and he or she said “I think it has a lot to do with the piece of mahogany that I salvaged from an antique piece of furniture and used for the body.” I’d be perfectly good with that answer. If they said “It’s because of tge superior sonic qualities of 300 year old mahogany.”
I’d be a little less happy with the non-explanation. Especially if they immediately came back (as some have) with something like: “When you’ve built as many instruments as I have for as long as I have, or maybe knew jack about wood, you wouldn’t be asking that question. I’m telling you that 300 year old mahagony is the bomb - and maybe if you could afford a really fine instrument like I build, you’d know that. Maybe you’d better get your hearing tested.” (I have gotten that answer from a builder BTW.)
Unfortunately, too many times, the answers I’ve gotten back when I’ve asked: “How can you possibly know that to be true?” have boiled down to someone saying “Because I
just know - and you don’t.”
That may be so. But that’s not an explanation. And it’s definitely not science.
