Positive testing, in this case, is matching a sample to a pre-existing pattern
Negative testing is trying to invalidate the sample
The hunting of the snark is written in a way that reads like "normal English" from a distance. The sentences flow fine, the words look about right if you squint. So it passes a lot of "positive tests", in that it matches our expectations for what language looks like.
You have to "negative test" the story to realize you don't know the definitions for any of the words, and that the plot is uninterpretable.
Same idea as Kahneman's system 1 that comes up with instant answers, or ChatGPT hallucinating facts by association that "look right".
Reminds me of Ted Hughes' Wodwo, playing with the concept of the known, unknown, and unknowable.
It challenges the reader to try to model and define a Wodwo, but provides basically no information on what a wodwo is, aside from the fact that it is something that itself is struggles to define it's relation and connection to the world.
In my opinion, it highlights how we are all physical perception machines looking for meaning and identity, but meaning and identity can not be physically perceived.
Negative testing is trying to invalidate the sample
The hunting of the snark is written in a way that reads like "normal English" from a distance. The sentences flow fine, the words look about right if you squint. So it passes a lot of "positive tests", in that it matches our expectations for what language looks like.
You have to "negative test" the story to realize you don't know the definitions for any of the words, and that the plot is uninterpretable.
Same idea as Kahneman's system 1 that comes up with instant answers, or ChatGPT hallucinating facts by association that "look right".