Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The absence of evidence


Dejarma

Recommended Posts

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 by OntarioSquatch
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, his footprint does.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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."

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by OntarioSquatch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by OntarioSquatch
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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 by quiXilver
delete a word
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by OntarioSquatch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Merc14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

NS_MILKY_WAY_POSTER.0.jpg

(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.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

NS_MILKY_WAY_POSTER.0.jpg

(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

  • This topic was locked and unlocked

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.