OntarioSquatch Posted September 4, 2017 #101 Share Posted September 4, 2017 (edited) The phrase "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" only makes sense when one doesn't make any observation (i.e. not look at all). If you look inside a box for an ordinary object, and don't see it, the emptiness of that box can be evidence that the object isn't there. Of course, with anomolous phenomena that's supposedly very rare and complex, this can become extremely difficult to do. To rule out the existence such phenomena, one would have to make foolish assumptions about what the phenomenon would be like if it were real. The only time I see people making that mistake is when they're either very poorly informed or trying to eliminate congitive dissonance (i.e. the mentally painful "tug of war" between compelling evidence existing for both sides) Edited September 5, 2017 by OntarioSquatch 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'mConvinced Posted September 5, 2017 #102 Share Posted September 5, 2017 1 hour ago, OntarioSquatch said: The phrase "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" only makes sense when one doesn't make any observation (i.e. not look at all). If you look inside a box for an ordinary object, and don't see it, the emptiness of that box can be evidence that the object isn't there. Of course, with anomolous phenomena that's supposedly very rare and complex, this can become extremely difficult to do. To rule out the existence such phenomena, one would have to make foolish assumptions about what the phenomenon would be like if it were real. The only time I see people making that mistake is when they're either very poorly informed or trying to eliminate congitive dissonance (i.e. the mentally painful "tug of war" between compelling evidence existing for both sides) Bigfoot doesn't exist. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Due Posted September 5, 2017 #103 Share Posted September 5, 2017 Oh yeah, his footprint does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted September 5, 2017 #104 Share Posted September 5, 2017 5 minutes ago, Will Due said: Oh yeah, his footprint does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'mConvinced Posted September 5, 2017 #105 Share Posted September 5, 2017 Quote The phrase "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" only makes sense when one doesn't make any observation (i.e. not look at all). If you look inside a box for an ordinary object, and don't see it, the emptiness of that box can be evidence that the object isn't there This is logically fallacious. Initial condition is looking inside a box with the predisposition being that there is an object in there. When you open the box and find it empty you have not discovered evidence of absence but rather evidence of an empty box. Now you can make assumptions about why the box is empty but you made a presumption that the box should have something in it at all. If you said "we locked an item in a box, sealed the box, buried it and guarded it but when opened it was empty" then that would be evidence of absence. Still, this is not what the original phrase is meant to convey. Simply put it means that if you look but don't find it does not necessarily mean what you are looking for doesn't exist. What you were doing was looking in a box and proving it was empty. Proof isn't evidence, it's proof. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OntarioSquatch Posted September 5, 2017 #106 Share Posted September 5, 2017 In the example I gave, I meant the existence of the object just within the box, not outside of it. In other words, the empty box is evidence that the pencil isn't in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OntarioSquatch Posted September 5, 2017 #107 Share Posted September 5, 2017 12 hours ago, I'mConvinced said: Bigfoot doesn't exist. That's an emotionally fuelled non sequitur, and in this case serves as an indicator that you wouldn't evaluate the subject reasonably even if we were discussing it 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'mConvinced Posted September 5, 2017 #108 Share Posted September 5, 2017 1 hour ago, OntarioSquatch said: In the example I gave, I meant the existence of the object just within the box, not outside of it. In other words, the empty box is evidence that the pencil isn't in the box. What pencil? You're creating a new starting position for yourself and it's still logically fallacious. 1 hour ago, OntarioSquatch said: That's an emotionally fuelled non sequitur, and in this case serves as an indicator that you wouldn't evaluate the subject reasonably even if we were discussing it It was a joke. However my starting position on this subject is that it is unlikely Bigfoot exists. I base this on the chances of a sizeable breeding population remaining undetected and the evidence collected so far. I'm willing to adjust this view should even one example turn up, dead or alive, for some close examination. On the other hand your post is merely an ad hominem. Another logical fallacy. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted September 5, 2017 #109 Share Posted September 5, 2017 1 hour ago, OntarioSquatch said: That's an emotionally fuelled non sequitur, and in this case serves as an indicator that you wouldn't evaluate the subject reasonably even if we were discussing it That is clearly not an emotionally fueled statement. It is not a non sequitur either. Such commentary suggests "you wouldn't evaluate the subject reasonably even if we were discussing it." 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OntarioSquatch Posted September 5, 2017 #110 Share Posted September 5, 2017 (edited) When correctly interpreted, "absence of evidence" means a lack of observation/investigation If you make an observation, the physical state that's observed can serve as evidence that a known object either is or isn't there. In the example I gave, the box's state of "emptiness" serves as evidence that the object isn't there. From a scientific perspective, it isn't proof; scientific theories can never be proven, otherwise it wouldn't be science. For instance, one can't rule out the possibility that some unknown factor is preventing you from seeing the object that's in the box. 1 hour ago, stereologist said: That is clearly not an emotionally fueled statement. It is not a non sequitur either. Such commentary suggests "you wouldn't evaluate the subject reasonably even if we were discussing it." It wasn't a joke, but either way, I don't think discussing it further would do any good Edited September 5, 2017 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'mConvinced Posted September 5, 2017 #111 Share Posted September 5, 2017 11 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said: It wasn't a joke, but either way, I don't think discussing it further would do any good I'd have to agree. If you haven't got it by now then you probably never will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted September 5, 2017 #112 Share Posted September 5, 2017 31 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said: When correctly interpreted, "absence of evidence" means a lack of observation/investigation If you make an observation, the physical state that's observed can serve as evidence that a known object either is or isn't there. In the example I gave, the box's state of "emptiness" serves as evidence that the object isn't there. From a scientific perspective, it isn't proof; scientific theories can never be proven, otherwise it wouldn't be science. For instance, one can't rule out the possibility that some unknown factor is preventing you from seeing the object that's in the box. It wasn't a joke, but either way, I don't think discussing it further would do any good A simpler statement is that it was not in the box when the box was inspected. That doesn't tell us anything other than the box does not contain the object. There is no need to suppose that some unknown factor is coming into play to make the box appear empty. To say it wasn't a joke is a straw man argument, another informal fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoferox Posted September 5, 2017 #113 Share Posted September 5, 2017 54 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said: When correctly interpreted, "absence of evidence" means a lack of observation/investigation This is not always the case. Decades of investigation and observation can occur without finding any definitive evidence of something's existence. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OntarioSquatch Posted September 5, 2017 #114 Share Posted September 5, 2017 (edited) I forgot to add that evidence requires interpretation, not just observation. It's not actually a matter of "finding" evidence, but rather, making observations that can be interpreted as being evidence. An observation that isn't interpreted as evidence by one person, could be interpreted as evidence by another. Edited September 5, 2017 by OntarioSquatch 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'mConvinced Posted September 5, 2017 #115 Share Posted September 5, 2017 You are talking about subjective evidence which holds little to no value when your claims can be tested with empirical evidence. If you just want to believe then bring your subjective 'evidence'. If you want to prove something you better get empirical. You can dance around the issue, arguing the semantics of a logical fallacy you've created, all you want but what you can't do is provide any (empirical) evidence to support your view. Now here come the claims of incredible (empirical) evidence which will be withheld on the premise we're 'too lazy' or 'closed minded' to 'read' it or 'seek' it ourselves. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badeskov Posted September 5, 2017 #116 Share Posted September 5, 2017 33 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said: I forgot to add that evidence requires interpretation, not just observation. It's not actually a matter of "finding" evidence, but rather, making observations that can be interpreted as being evidence. An observation that isn't interpreted as evidence by one person, could be interpreted as evidence by another. So where is said evidence? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor wu Posted September 5, 2017 #117 Share Posted September 5, 2017 53 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said: ...................... An observation that isn't interpreted as evidence by one person, could be interpreted as evidence by another. Could you give an example......? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quiXilver Posted September 5, 2017 #118 Share Posted September 5, 2017 (edited) with all our combined senses and all of our tools and instruments we are able to observe less than 5% of the universe. so yea. we should be really certain about LOTS of stuff. Edited September 5, 2017 by quiXilver delete a word Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OntarioSquatch Posted September 5, 2017 #119 Share Posted September 5, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, I'mConvinced said: You are talking about subjective evidence which holds little to no value when your claims can be tested with empirical evidence. If you just want to believe then bring your subjective 'evidence'. If you want to prove something you better get empirical. You can dance around the issue, arguing the semantics of a logical fallacy you've created, all you want but what you can't do is provide any (empirical) evidence to support your view. Now here come the claims of incredible (empirical) evidence which will be withheld on the premise we're 'too lazy' or 'closed minded' to 'read' it or 'seek' it ourselves. "Empirical evidence" (raw sensory data used to support a theory) still requires interpretation. The main advantage of empirical evidence is that its foundation isn't built from other theories. In science, theories are often built from other theories. The problem with anomolous phenomena is that the analysis required to make progress is often both challenging and controversial 1 hour ago, doctor wu said: Could you give an example......? An example would be forensics, in which observations made at crime scenes are often overlooked, only to later on be interpreted as useful evidence of something else. This sort of thing happens in every field of research imaginable, including genetics, astronomy, geology Edited September 5, 2017 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor wu Posted September 5, 2017 #120 Share Posted September 5, 2017 10 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said: ...... An example would be forensics, in which observations made at crime scenes are often overlooked, only to later on be interpreted as useful evidence of something else. This sort of thing happens in every field of research imaginable, including genetics, astronomy, geology OK.....not sure in what specific manner this might apply to an examination of a ufo sighting, but I get the general gist of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'mConvinced Posted September 5, 2017 #121 Share Posted September 5, 2017 20 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said: "Empirical evidence" (raw sensory data used to support a theory) still requires interpretation. The main advantage of empirical evidence is that its foundation isn't built from other theories. In science, theories are often built from other theories. The problem with anomolous phenomena is that the analysis required to make progress is often both challenging and controversial An example would be forensics, in which observations made at crime scenes are often overlooked, only to later on be interpreted as useful evidence of something else. This sort of thing happens in every field of research imaginable, including genetics, astronomy, geology I should have been more precise. Empirical evidence as relates to the application of scientific theory, not the raw definition of the term. If you have data that backs up your claim then please present it. There are plenty of people out there willing to investigate any evidence of extraordinary claims, myself included. In fact I would say I was eager to change my position I'm just lacking a reason to do so. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted September 5, 2017 #122 Share Posted September 5, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, quiXilver said: with all our combined senses and all of our tools and instruments we are able to observe less than 5% of the universe. so yea. we should be really certain about LOTS of stuff. So in your beleaguered mind since we can only observe 5% of the universe (what does this even mean) we should believe every idiotic fantasy story people tell us? Edited September 5, 2017 by Merc14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted September 5, 2017 #123 Share Posted September 5, 2017 The ' we are able to observe less than 5% of the universe. " seems like one of those statements that is either not true or is a specific issue being used in a generalization. http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/hasty-generalisation/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted September 6, 2017 #124 Share Posted September 6, 2017 7 hours ago, quiXilver said: we are able to observe less than 5% of the universe. I think you might be conflating some different claims there, and making a non-applicable analogy.... First up, if you mean what we can see with the naked eye, it is far, far less than that. Every star that you can see in the sky is within a small region in our arm of the galaxy. (from Vox/New Scientist) There are really only 3 things visible to the naked eye that are beyond our Galaxy, and they are our nearest neighbour the Andromeda Galaxy, and also two tiny 'satellite galaxies' known as the Magellanic Clouds. That, out of more than 2 trillion galaxies, most of which are far wider spread than our local ones. Interestingly, though, our observations of our own galaxy and stars, seems to indicate the rest of the galaxies in the Universe have a lot in common with ours.. The 4 or 5% figure is usually referring to dark matter. We haven't been able to observe or measure dark matter because: - we aren't exactly sure whether it exists as real matter or if something else that we don't yet understand, is going on - it is so incredibly far away that it is undetectable except for its effect on other visible things - it is .. well, er.. dark. Dark and far away means we can't shine a torch there....... So.... how is any of that comparable to claims of ghosts/aliens on Earth? Pop on over to Google Earth, and spend a while examining our planet. Then physically explore a forest and tell us what you find that hasn't already been catalogued. Then tell us how many big hitherto-unknown animals, or alien artefacts, have been discovered in the last forty years or so, ie since we got fairly good with exploring, and with cameras and detection devices. Is that similar to our Cosmological investigations? In other words.. as far as analogies go, that is a pretty bad one, imo. 7 hours ago, quiXilver said: so yea. we should be really certain about LOTS of stuff. Yep, we can indeed be almost dead set certain about lots of stuff. It's not black and white, and in this case, not comparable. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quiXilver Posted September 6, 2017 #125 Share Posted September 6, 2017 11 hours ago, ChrLzs said: I think you might be conflating some different claims there, and making a non-applicable analogy.... First up, if you mean what we can see with the naked eye, it is far, far less than that. Every star that you can see in the sky is within a small region in our arm of the galaxy. (from Vox/New Scientist) There are really only 3 things visible to the naked eye that are beyond our Galaxy, and they are our nearest neighbour the Andromeda Galaxy, and also two tiny 'satellite galaxies' known as the Magellanic Clouds. That, out of more than 2 trillion galaxies, most of which are far wider spread than our local ones. Interestingly, though, our observations of our own galaxy and stars, seems to indicate the rest of the galaxies in the Universe have a lot in common with ours.. The 4 or 5% figure is usually referring to dark matter. We haven't been able to observe or measure dark matter because: - we aren't exactly sure whether it exists as real matter or if something else that we don't yet understand, is going on - it is so incredibly far away that it is undetectable except for its effect on other visible things - it is .. well, er.. dark. Dark and far away means we can't shine a torch there....... So.... how is any of that comparable to claims of ghosts/aliens on Earth? Pop on over to Google Earth, and spend a while examining our planet. Then physically explore a forest and tell us what you find that hasn't already been catalogued. Then tell us how many big hitherto-unknown animals, or alien artefacts, have been discovered in the last forty years or so, ie since we got fairly good with exploring, and with cameras and detection devices. Is that similar to our Cosmological investigations? In other words.. as far as analogies go, that is a pretty bad one, imo. Yep, we can indeed be almost dead set certain about lots of stuff. It's not black and white, and in this case, not comparable. That's very interesting. But not at all what I said or meant. I meant very simpy, what I said with my words. But your response was quite interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now