[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 52 KB, 403x275, the-absence-of-evidence-is-not-the-evidence-of-absence-carl-sagan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10471069 No.10471069 [Reply] [Original]

Daily reminder.

>> No.10471071

>>10471069
Now lets fuck up some iraqi's

>> No.10471082
File: 11 KB, 228x223, 1511113058955.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10471082

>>10471069
The absence of specific evidence is more likely evidence of specific absence though.

gotta draw the line somewhere right?

>> No.10471083

>>10471069
he was talking about ayyys lmao not jebus

>> No.10471088

>>10471069
If P(X|E) > P(X) then E is evidence for X

P(~X|E) < P(~X)

P(E|~X) < P(E)

P(~E|~X) > P(~E)

P(~X|~E) > P(~X)

Therefore ~E is evidence for ~X

The absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

>> No.10471089

>>10471088
>fuck you gonna do when you forgot about Bayes

>> No.10471091

>>10471088
>The absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Does not follow.

>> No.10471095

>>10471091
If E is evidence of X then it directly follows that the absence of E is evidence of the absence of X, by the proof you are responding to.

>> No.10471392

>>10471088
This is contingent on what we consider "evidence"

>> No.10471469

evidence is caused by presence, but that doesn't mean presence always causes evidence, therefore a lack of evidence does not denote a lack of presence

>> No.10471476

>>10471095
>>10471088
this implies that evidence ALREADY exists, because of the conditional statement

>> No.10471881

If I ring the doorbell, and they don’t open, then there is no evidence that they’re at home. Is the absence of that evidence evidence of their absence?

>> No.10471885

>>10471476
If X exists, there will be evidence of X. Nonexistence of any evidence, known, unknown and unknowable, means nonexistence altogether.

>> No.10471947

>>10471392
Evidence is defined in the first step.

>> No.10471956

>>10471469
>evidence is caused by presence
This is false. If presence was necessary for evidence then any evidence would immediately be proof of presence. In reality, evidence only increases the probability of presence and can be caused by other factors.

>> No.10471960

>>10471476
No the condition implies that *if* evidence existed it would increase the probability of X. You can calculate conditional probabilities for conditions that aren't true or aren't known to be true.

>> No.10471978
File: 238 KB, 720x452, evidence of absence.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10471978

>>10471069
Wrong

>> No.10472016

>>10471088
I'm not sure if this is OP trying to stir up his own thread or some anon who copied my proof verbatim from a thread month's ago. Either way, weird.

>> No.10472020

>>10471069
>the absence of absence is absence of absence
t. Barl Bagan

>> No.10472027
File: 45 KB, 389x129, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10472027

>>10471978
>>10471088

>> No.10472258

>>10471069
The absence of alien signals is evidence of their absence and the absence of traces of WMDs is evidence of their absence.

>> No.10472271 [DELETED] 

>>10471082
This so much, how can any educated person not want to kill all niggers?

>> No.10472366
File: 81 KB, 475x360, Giant-Squid-R.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10472366

I have looked carefully for any evidence that there is a giant squid in my kitchen.

Such evidence is totally lacking.

No tentacle-marks on the wall.
No ink stains on the cabinetry.
No saltwater puddles on the floor.
No pervasive smell offish and ammonia.
Don't see a giant squid, even looking in the pantry and under appliances.
No hungry sperm whales using kitchen for hunting grounds.

Given that none of the expected evidence that a giant squid in the kitchen would be expected to produce, it seems a pretty safe conclusion that no giant squid is present there-in.

>> No.10472371
File: 16 KB, 399x400, 1519060005509.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10472371

>>10471069
>Daily reminder.
>Post it only one time

>> No.10472456 [DELETED] 

>>10471069
Adding some more Bayes' to the pile:

If E is evidence for X that means P(X|E) > P(X). If absense of evidence is evidence of absense that means P(X|~E) < P(X). Suppose absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. Then P(X|E) > P(X) and P(X|~E) >= P(X)

P(X) = P(X|E)*P(E) + P(X|~E)*P(~E) # law of total probability
P(X|E)*P(E) + P(X|~E)*P(~E) > P(X)*P(E) + P(X)*P(~E) # since P(X|E) > P(X) and P(X|~E) >= P(X)
P(X)*P(E) + P(X)*P(~E) = P(X) * (P(E) + P(~E)) = P(X) # since P(E) + P(~E) = 1
=> P(X) > P(X)

So we have a contradiction. Therefore, absense of evidence is evidence of absense

>> No.10472460 [DELETED] 

>>10471069 (OP)
Adding a proof to the pile:

If E is evidence for X that means P(X|E) > P(X). If absense of evidence is evidence of absense that means P(X|~E) < P(X). Suppose absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. Then P(X|E) > P(X) and P(X|~E) >= P(X)

P(X) = P(X|E)*P(E) + P(X|~E)*P(~E) # law of total probability
P(X|E)*P(E) + P(X|~E)*P(~E) > P(X)*P(E) + P(X)*P(~E) # since P(X|E) > P(X) and P(X|~E) >= P(X)
P(X)*P(E) + P(X)*P(~E) = P(X) * (P(E) + P(~E)) = P(X) # since P(E) + P(~E) = 1
=> P(X) > P(X)

So we have a contradiction. Therefore, absense of evidence is evidence of absense

>> No.10472465 [DELETED] 

>>10471069
Adding a disproof of OP to the pile:

>>10471069 (OP) (OP)
Adding a proof to the pile:

If E is evidence for X that means P(X|E) > P(X). If absense of evidence is evidence of absense that means P(X|~E) < P(X). Suppose absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. Then P(X|E) > P(X) and P(X|~E) >= P(X)

P(X) = P(X|E)*P(E) + P(X|~E)*P(~E) # law of total probability
P(X|E)*P(E) + P(X|~E)*P(~E) > P(X)*P(E) + P(X)*P(~E) # since P(X|E) > P(X) and P(X|~E) >= P(X)
P(X)*P(E) + P(X)*P(~E) = P(X) * (P(E) + P(~E)) = P(X) # since P(E) + P(~E) = 1
=> P(X) > P(X)

So we have a contradiction. Therefore, absense of evidence is evidence of absense

>> No.10472470

>>10471069
Adding a disproof of OP to the pile:

If E is evidence for X presumably we are saying that E is something which, if observed, would increase the chance that X is true i.e. P(X|E) > P(X). If absense of evidence is evidence of absense that means P(X|~E) < P(X). Suppose absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. Then P(X|E) > P(X) and P(X|~E) >= P(X)

P(X) = P(X|E)*P(E) + P(X|~E)*P(~E) # law of total probability
P(X|E)*P(E) + P(X|~E)*P(~E) > P(X)*P(E) + P(X)*P(~E) # since P(X|E) > P(X) and P(X|~E) >= P(X)
P(X)*P(E) + P(X)*P(~E) = P(X) * (P(E) + P(~E)) = P(X) # since P(E) + P(~E) = 1
=> P(X) > P(X)

So we have a contradiction. Ergo, absense of evidence is evidence of absense

>> No.10472509

All reputable statisticians reject Bayes "theorem".

>> No.10472511

>>10471069
Yes it is. Go post about #METOO somewhere else. Empirical Evidence Uber alles.

>> No.10472514
File: 36 KB, 624x623, farzIev.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10472514

>>10472258
>The absence of alien signals is evidence of their absence
Not even close.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#We_are_not_listening_properly
>a radio telescope as sensitive as the Arecibo Observatory, Earth's television and radio broadcasts would
>only be detectable at distances up to 0.3 light-years, less than 1/10 the distance to the nearest star.

>> No.10472515

>>10471088
>The absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
This is a non-sequitur.

>> No.10472523

>>10471088
>No black swan Fallacy

>> No.10472524

>>10471088
As far as I can make out, it's just mincing words. Logical negation is not a good representation of what "absence" means. I'll assume that it is standard to describe the observation of A as "evidence"; given the conditions of the poster this seems to be at least somewhat reasonable. However, then "absence of evidence" does not mean observing ¬A. It simply means that we're not observing A -- which could be because both A and ¬A are events that cannot be, or have not been, observed directly.

"Absence of evidence" can also be taken to describe the situation that we can identify no random observable that is even (provably) dependent of B. This too is very different from observing such a variable and find that it doesn't support B

In essence, the author is committing the very fallacy he's denying. He's assuming that the phrase "absence of evidence" ought to be modeled mathematically as a construction that actually models presence of evidence to the contrary.

Or, in modal logic terms, ¬□A is not the same as □¬A.

>> No.10472544

>>10472514
Earth's television and radio broadcasts are not what's being searched for though. If you admit that it's at least possible for SETI to succeed then its failure is evidence of absence.

>> No.10472550

>>10472515
>This is a non-sequitur.
This is a non-sequitur.

>> No.10472553

>>10472470
>If absense of evidence is evidence of absense that means P(X|~E) < P(X).
The absence of E does not imply the presence of ~E.

>> No.10472560

>>10472523
>black swan fallacy
>The logical error of discounting the possibility of something because no evidence has yet been observed for it.
Nowhere does the argument imply that X is impossible. Try again.

>> No.10472571

>>10471069
That’s not actually true.

>> No.10472578

>>10472524
>As far as I can make out, it's just mincing words. Logical negation is not a good representation of what "absence" means.
Why not?

>I'll assume that it is standard to describe the observation of A as "evidence"
What is A? And there is nothing said about "observation" of anything.

>However, then "absence of evidence" does not mean observing ¬A.
No one said it did.

>"Absence of evidence" can also be taken to describe the situation that we can identify no random observable that is even (provably) dependent of B.
That is not how the phrase is used. It was most famously used by Sagan to describe the failure of SETI to find signs of alien life and by Rumsfeld to describe the failure to find signs of WMDs in Iraq. And the argument begins with a premise that requires P(E) > 0.

>He's assuming that the phrase "absence of evidence" ought to be modeled mathematically as a construction that actually models presence of evidence to the contrary.
No, he's assuming that evidence increases the probability of some event. Do you agree or disagree?

>> No.10472582

>>10472553
The absence of E implies ~E.

>> No.10472587

>>10472582
>The absence of E implies ~E.
How so? If you're guessing which card I pulled from a deck of cards and I don't tell you it's red, what implies that the card is black?

>> No.10472591

>>10472553
>The absence of E does not imply the presence of ~E.
Yes it does, dude. E is a stand in for a particular event or observation. Events either happen or they don't. You either observe something or you don't. In logic E or not E is a basic tautology. In statistics E and not E fully spans the sample space and occurs with probability 1

>> No.10472598

>>10472591
>Events either happen or they don't.
Probabilities can be calculated independently of auxiliary events.

>> No.10472600

>>10472591
>In logic E or not E is a basic tautology.
Assuming the law of excluded middle is true.

>> No.10472607

>>10472587
>If you're guessing which card I pulled from a deck of cards and I don't tell you it's red, what implies that the card is black?
The analogous statement would be "the absence of you telling me that the card is red implies that you did not tell me the card is red."

>> No.10472608

>>10472607
>The analogous statement would be "the absence of you telling me that the card is red implies that you did not tell me the card is red."
Which does imply that the card is black, hence the absence of E does not imply the presence of ~E.

>> No.10472610

>>10472608
>Which does not* imply

>> No.10472615

>>10472598
>Probabilities can be calculated independently of auxiliary events.
I'm not sure what you're saying. Can you explain what you mean and what it has to do with what I said?

>>10472600
>Assuming the law of excluded middle is true.
Yes. I admit that I believe axiomatically that multiple contradictory states of the world cannot be true at the same time. I suppose this could be false, but if that were the case I'm not sure how any knowledge of the world would be possible, so seems like one of those assumptions that you might as well make

>> No.10472619

>>10472615
>I'm not sure what you're saying. Can you explain what you mean and what it has to do with what I said?
There's no necessity for 'happening' in probability. I can calculate the probability of rolling a 6 without considering an auxiliary event 'happening' or 'not happening'.

>> No.10472620

>>10472608
>Which does imply that the card is black
According to what?

>hence the absence of E does not imply the presence of ~E.
That doesn't even follow. How would the card being black mean that the absence of you telling me the card is red is different from not telling me that the card is red?

>> No.10472626

>>10472610
>Which does not* imply that the card is black
Why would it? And how does this mean that the absence of you telling me the card is red does not imply that you didn't tell me the card is red?

>> No.10472628

>>10472620
>How would the card being black mean that the absence of you telling me the card is red is different from not telling me that the card is red?
What color the card is irrelevant. What's relevant is that the absence of evidence that the card is red does not imply the presence of absence that the card is black.

>> No.10472633

>>10472626
>Why would it?
It wouldn't.

>> No.10472635

>>10472628
>What's relevant is that the absence of evidence that the card is red does not imply the presence of absence that the card is black.
The absence of evidence that the card is red increases the probability that the card is black.

>> No.10472636

>>10472633
Yes, I'm asking you what it has to do with anything I said.

>> No.10472639

>>10472635
>The absence of evidence that the card is red increases the probability that the card is black.
Why would it?

>> No.10472640

>>10472639
See >>10471088

>> No.10472641

>>10471978
>>10471088
Doesn't this proof assume there is a global lack of evidence? Like if we could know everything, and there was indeed no evidence, then it ought to prove nonexistence.

However, what the quote is intended to mean is that we don't know everything, and that there might BE evidence out there that we have yet to discover.

>> No.10472642

>>10472640
That relies on the assumption that the absence of E implies that presence of ~E, which is a non-sequitur.

>> No.10472643

>>10471082
Guys, if we keep leaving the lid off the garbage can, /pol/ is just going to keep climbing out and getting into /sci/.

This is why we can't have nice things.

>> No.10472645

>>10472587
>How so? If you're guessing which card I pulled from a deck of cards and I don't tell you it's red, what implies that the card is black?

Firstly, whether you telling me the card is red is evidence for the card being red depends on what I believe about you. For example, if I believe you are a liar who always lies about cards, then it would be evidence against the card being red. But assuming my beliefs about you are such that I think that if you say the card is red that means the card is more likely to be red than if you say nothing, then it is the failure to say that the card is red that provides the evidence that the card is black. It may not be absolute evidence that the card is certainly black, but it will be some evidence (the amount depends again on my precise beliefs about how you behave)

>> No.10472646

>>10472641
>Doesn't this proof assume there is a global lack of evidence?
It could apply to any absence of evidence, global or specific.

>However, what the quote is intended to mean is that we don't know everything, and that there might BE evidence out there that we have yet to discover.
The proof does not contradict this.

>> No.10472650
File: 22 KB, 500x375, 508.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10472650

>>10471069
>>10471956
>In reality, evidence only increases the probability of presence and can be caused by other factors.

Then the only "evidence" IS absence. To find what "it is" you must negate "what it is not".

>> No.10472651

>>10472642
>That relies on the assumption that the absence of E implies that presence of ~E, which is a non-sequitur.
No, absence of E is ~E, not the presence of ~E. The presence of ~E is either redundant or nonsensical.

>> No.10472653

>>10472645
>it is the failure to say that the card is red that provides the evidence that the card is black.
How so?

>> No.10472657

>>10471069
Atheist fags btfo

>> No.10472659

>>10472651
>The presence of ~E is either redundant or nonsensical.
Redudant given what?

>> No.10472664

>>10472659
The presence of absence is redundant.

>> No.10472666

>>10472664
>The presence of absence is redundant.
Redundant given what?

>> No.10472667

>>10472619
>There's no necessity for 'happening' in probability. I can calculate the probability of rolling a 6 without considering an auxiliary event 'happening' or 'not happening'.
What auxiliary event are you talking about? The event of rolling a 6 is the event that happens or doesn't. When you roll a dice you either roll a 6 or you don't roll a 6. In probability any event X - such as the event of rolling a six on a die - and its negation - the event of not rolling a 6 - fully span the sample space and occur with probability 1. For any event X, it is a necessity in probability that that event happens or its negation happens

>> No.10472669

>>10472666
Given it's the presence of absence.

>> No.10472684

>>10472667
>What auxiliary event are you talking about?
Any auxiliary event in general.

>When you roll a dice you either roll a 6 or you don't roll a 6.
And I either rolled an even number or an odd number. If you don't have evidence that I rolled an even number, then what evidence do you have that I rolled an odd number?

>> No.10472685
File: 55 KB, 600x600, 1538799915822.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10472685

>>10472669
>presence of absence
>reifying shadows

>> No.10472689

>>10472669
>Given it's the presence of absence.
Given what is the presence of absence?

>> No.10472694

>>10472685
>>>/x/

>>10472689
The presence of absence.

>> No.10472701

>>10472694
>The presence of absence.
What is the relevance of the presence of absence being the presence of absence?

>> No.10472706

>>10472694
/x/? It's a contradictory statement. Explain yourself.

>> No.10472707

>>10472701
It's redundant.

>> No.10472717

>>10472707
>It's redundant.
Why is the redundancy relevant?

>> No.10472725

>>10472717
That's what I'm asking you. You're the one who made up "presence of absence."

>> No.10472726

>>10472560
You imply that of we haven't seen Evidence then there isn't Evidence at all to be seen .This is a no black swan Fallacy

>> No.10472727

>>10472725
>That's what I'm asking you.
You said that 'The presence of ~E is either redundant or nonsensical.'. What's the relevance?

>> No.10472739

>>10472726
>You imply that of we haven't seen Evidence then there isn't Evidence at all to be seen
Where did I imply that?

>> No.10472746

>>10472727
You said "That relies on the assumption that the absence of E implies that presence of ~E" which is a non-sequitur.

>> No.10472751

>>10472746
>You said "That relies on the assumption that the absence of E implies that presence of ~E" which is a non-sequitur.
What does this have to do with the question of relevance of redundancy?

>> No.10472765

>>10472751
How is a redundant/nonsensical statement relevant?

>> No.10472770

>>10472684
>Any auxiliary event in general.
What do you even mean? Specific example please

>And I either rolled an even number or an odd number. If you don't have evidence that I rolled an even number, then what evidence do you have that I rolled an odd number?
The absence of evidence that you rolled an even number is itself evidence that you rolled an odd number

If there is an observation that could be made that would increase the chance that you rolled an even number, then the absence of that observation decreases the chance that you rolled an even number. This includes very direct observations like looking at the die with your eyes and seeing an even number as well as more indirect observations like seeing me smile when I look at the dice after making a bet on whether the result will be even or odd

I laid out the proof here >>10472470

It may not seem intuitive if you aren't accustomed to thinking about knowledge in terms of conditional probability, but it's true

>> No.10472784

>>10472770
>What do you even mean? Specific example please
As I said, any event in general. There's no need for specific ones but you can choose any particular one since it's true in full generality.

>> No.10472793

>>10472770
>It may not seem intuitive if you aren't accustomed to thinking about knowledge in terms of conditional probability, but it's true
Conditional probability calculates based on the presence of evidence, not the absence of evidence.

>> No.10472817

>>10472765
>How is a redundant/nonsensical statement relevant?
That's what I'm asking you.

>> No.10472821

>>10472817
You're the one who made it.

>> No.10472829

>>10472793
The absence of evidence is evidence.

>> No.10472833

>>10472821
>You're the one who made it.
What relevance does the redundancy have?

>> No.10472837
File: 60 KB, 829x536, ashley-rochelle-before-and-after.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10472837

>>10471069
> doesn't understand Bayes theorem

Even Conan Doyle knew that "the dog that didn't bark" was important evidence.

/thread

>> No.10472838

>>10472829
>The absence of evidence is evidence.
How so?

>> No.10472845

>>10472833
You're the one who made it, tell me.

>> No.10472848

>>10472845
>You're the one who made it, tell me.
The statement is relevant, I don't see the relevance of its redundancy.

>> No.10472849

>>10472838
Example: my friend claims he is passionate and committed to becoming a great guitarist. But he never practices.

The absence of evidence of practicing is strong evidence that he, like OP, is full of shit.

>> No.10472855

>>10472848
>The statement is relevant
How?

>> No.10472857

>>10472664
>>10472669
>>10472707
>>10472821
>>10472765

FFS there's nothing "redundant" about the statement "presence of absence". It's contradiction. "presence of a presence" is a redundant statement as is "absence of an absence". Still waiting for my >>10472706 explanation.

>> No.10472859

>>10472653
Well, let's do a simple example. Let's say I believe you are someone who loves red cards, so whenever you have one there's a 30 percent chance you'll get excited and tell me that you have a red card. Otherwise, or if you have a black card, you will never say anything. Then the mathematics of the situation looks like this:

Let B represent the event where the card is black
Let T represent the event where you tell me the card is red

P(B) = P(~B) = 0.5 # drawing a card from a deck of half red and half black
P(~T|B) = 1 # you never say anything for non-red cards
P(~T|~B) = 0.7 # seventy percent chance you say nothing for a red card
P(~T) = P(~T|B)*P(B) + P(~T|~B)*P(~B) = (1)*(0.5) + (0.7)*(0.5) = 0.85 # law of total probability

P(B|~T) = P(~T|B)*P(B)/P(~T) = (1)*(0.5)/(0.85) ~= 0.59 # Bayes' Rule

So in this case, when you don't tell me the card is red the chance that it is black shifts upwards slightly from the prior of 50 percent to about 59 percent . So the fact that you didn't tell me the card is red is a small amount of evidence that the card is black. But what if instead I think you're someone who REALLY loves red cards and will blurt out about them 80 percent of the time:

P(B) = P(~B) = 0.5 # drawing a card from a deck of half red and half black
P(~T|B) = 1 # you never say anything for non-red cards
P(~T|~B) = 0.2 # twenty percent chance you say nothing for a red card
P(~T) = P(~T|B)*P(B) + P(~T|~B)*P(~B) = (1)*(0.5) + (0.2)*(0.5) = 0.6 # law of total probability

P(B|~T) = P(~T|B)*P(B)/P(~T) = (1)*(0.5)/(0.6) ~= 0.83 # Bayes' Rule

Now when you don't tell me the card is red the chance that it is black shifts upwards significantly to over 80 percent! The stronger evidence an observation provides, the stronger counter-evidence its absence provides

>> No.10472860

>>10472855
>How?
Because the absence of evidence that the card is red does not imply the presence of absence that the card is black. Therefore the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

>> No.10472865

>>10472857
>FFS there's nothing "redundant" about the statement "presence of absence".
There is, since it's either nonsensical or simply means absence. I'm still waiting for an explanation of where "the assumption that the absence of E implies that presence of ~E" comes from and how it's relevant.

>> No.10472868

>>10472860
>Because the absence of evidence that the card is red does not imply the presence of absence that the card is black.
Nothing I said implies this, so again, you're spouting irrelevancies. The absence of evidence that the card is red increases the probability that the card is black.

>> No.10472873

>>10472868
>The absence of evidence that the card is red increases the probability that the card is black.
Nothing this, so again, you're spouting irrelevancies.

>> No.10472876

>>10472873
That is proven here >>10471088. If you could find a flaw in the proof you would have done so by now instead of making up random phrases and implications.

>> No.10472884

>>10472876
>That is proven here >>10471088.
That post is not a "proof", and it supposes the falsity that the absence of E is the presence of ~E. If you could find a fix for this logical flaw then you would have done so by now instead of making up random phrases and implications.

>> No.10472894

>>10472366
Did you look in the sink for god's sake!?

>> No.10472895

>>10472784
>As I said, any event in general. There's no need for specific ones but you can choose any particular one since it's true in full generality.
So do it then. In the case we have been discussing about a dice roll, what would be an "auxiliary event"?

>>10472793
>Conditional probability calculates based on the presence of evidence, not the absence of evidence.
Conditional probability calculates the probability of one subset of the sample space of events conditional on the occurrence of another. The math doesn't care if we're talking about a subset of events that we would naturally describe positively in language - such as a die rolling a 6 - or a subset of events that we would naturally describe negatively in language - such as a die rolling a non-6. That's just language convention. The math doesn't care. It's all just subsets of the sample space

>> No.10472898

>>10472884
>That post is not a "proof"
How is it not a proof?

>and it supposes the falsity that the absence of E is the presence of ~E
Where?

>> No.10472902

>>10472895
>So do it then. In the case we have been discussing about a dice roll, what would be an "auxiliary event"?
Any event other than the event of interest.

>> No.10472904

>>10472865
>There is, since it's either nonsensical or simply means absence
"Nonsensical" does not mean "redundant", however redundancies can be nonsensical. An absence cannot be present because it is absent, obviously. Saying there is a "presence of it" is not redundant because it never has a presence to begin with. Once it is "present" then it fails to be "absent". Saying it has presence is a contradiction to what it is; it is absent.

>> No.10472905

>>10472898
>Where?
In the non-sequitur that it ends with.

>> No.10472915

>>10472895
>It's all just subsets of the sample space
What subset of the sample space corresponds to the absence of evidence?

>> No.10472916

>>10472904
>"Nonsensical" does not mean "redundant"
Do you know what the word "or" means? Because I don't see how any literate person would somehow construe that saying something is either A or B means that A and B are the same thing.

>An absence cannot be present because it is absent
I never said anything was present in my proof, so this is again an irrelevancy.

>> No.10472919

>>10472905
What it ends with follows directly from the proof and says nothing about "presence of absence." Try again.

>> No.10472929

>>10472919
>What it ends with follows directly from the proof
The non-sequitur does not follow (by definition).

>and says nothing about "presence of absence."
What is the relevance of it saying nothing about "presence of absence"?

>> No.10472934

>>10472929
>The non-sequitur does not follow (by definition).
There is no non sequitur.

>What is the relevance of it saying nothing about "presence of absence"?
You said it did.

>> No.10472938

>>10472916
>Do you know what the word "or" means?
Well whatever, you've only made like 7 fucking posts alluding to redundancy and there's nothing redundant. Thought I should help you out before you hurt yourself...

>I never said anything was present in my proof, so this is again an irrelevancy.
...more than you already have.

>> No.10472939

>>10472934
>There is no non sequitur.
The conclusion is a non-sequitur.

>You said it did.
I don't mind if your "proof" says nothing about "presence of absence". What is the relevance of this though?

>> No.10472962

>>10472938
Good, sit in the corner until you're called back to the table.

>>10472939
>The conclusion is a non-sequitur.
It's not and you have no argument.

>I don't mind if your "proof" says nothing about "presence of absence". What is the relevance of this though?
So you admit your claim about what my argument implies has no relevance. Thanks.

>> No.10472981
File: 44 KB, 750x573, 1543166995965.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10472981

>>10472962
>Good, sit in the corner until you're called back to the table.

>literally trying to argue over nothing

>> No.10472991

>>10472981
I'm trying to understand what flaw you there is in my proof and yes, so far that turns out to be nothing.

>> No.10473002

>>10472366
>He doesn't keep giant squid in his kitchen
Plebian

>> No.10473021

>>10472902
Okay, and what is your point in bringing this up with respect to >>10472591 ?

>>10472915
>What subset of the sample space corresponds to the absence of evidence?
Depends on what we're talking about. In my example of me smiling after seeing the dice roll, it would be the subset of the sample space where I don't smile

>> No.10473282

>>10472643
I thought they were too busy jerking off to the mosque shooter?

>> No.10473373

>>10473021
>Okay, and what is your point in bringing this up with respect to >>10472591 ?
That auxiliary events don't need to be considered while calculating probabilities of the event of interest.

>> No.10473507

>>10473373
>That auxiliary events don't need to be considered while calculating probabilities of the event of interest.
But they absolutely do. Keeping to the dice roll example, let's say the event you are interested in is the event where the die rolls a 6 and some "auxiliary" events are the event where the die rolls a 5 and the event where the die did not roll a six

Before learning anything about the outcome and knowing nothing special about the die you would say that P(6) = P(5) = P(4) = P(3) = P(2) = P(1) = 1/6. You would also say that P(~6) = 5/6

But now what if you learn that the "auxiliary" event that the die rolled a 5 definitely did not occur? Now P(6) = P(4) = P(3) = P(2) = P(1) = 1/5 and P(5) = 0. Learning about the "auxiliary" 5 event affects your proper evaluation of the probability of the 6 event

Or again, what if you learn that the die did not roll a 6? Obviously when you learn that the "auxiliary" ~6 event happened you have also learned that the probability of the 6 event is 0

When events are related to each other like these, learning about one gives you information about the other. This is dramatically the case for events that are negations of each other because an event and its negation event necessarily span the entire sample space, so learning the probability of one of them absolutely nails down the probability of the other to 1-X

>> No.10473534

>>10473507
>But they absolutely do. Keeping to the dice roll example, let's say the event you are interested in is the event where the die rolls a 6 and some "auxiliary" events are the event where the die rolls a 5 and the event where the die did not roll a six
>Before learning anything about the outcome and knowing nothing special about the die you would say that P(6) = P(5) = P(4) = P(3) = P(2) = P(1) = 1/6. You would also say that P(~6) = 5/6
>But now what if you learn that the "auxiliary" event that the die rolled a 5 definitely did not occur? Now P(6) = P(4) = P(3) = P(2) = P(1) = 1/5 and P(5) = 0. Learning about the "auxiliary" 5 event affects your proper evaluation of the probability of the 6 event
>Or again, what if you learn that the die did not roll a 6? Obviously when you learn that the "auxiliary" ~6 event happened you have also learned that the probability of the 6 event is 0
>When events are related to each other like these, learning about one gives you information about the other. This is dramatically the case for events that are negations of each other because an event and its negation event necessarily span the entire sample space, so learning the probability of one of them absolutely nails down the probability of the other to 1-X
I said "don't need to be", not "can't be".

>> No.10473558

this... fucking... thread

>> No.10473590

>>10473534
>I said "don't need to be", not "can't be".
Unrelated events do not matter, related ones must be considered if you want to reflect all of the useful information that you have. Happy?

My earlier posts did not consider any unrelated events that I am aware of, so again, what the fuck is the point of this conversation. My proof that OP is wrong is here >>10472470 . If you think I'm wrong I'd love to see your math, and if the only point you have to make is that you don't HAVE to update your beliefs based on useful evidence then that's retarded

>> No.10473596

>>10473590
>My proof that OP is wrong is here >>10472470 .
Your "proof" is wrong since it conflates absence of evidence with evidence.

>> No.10473599

>>10473590
>if the only point you have to make is that you don't HAVE to update your beliefs based on useful evidence then that's retarded
Why are you introducing scenarios with a presence of evidence when the situation hypothesizes an absence of evidence?

>> No.10473607

>>10473596
>>10473599
>Your "proof" is wrong since it conflates absence of evidence with evidence.
No, it proves that these are the same thing. For any thing, if there are observations that would be evidence for that thing then the absence of those observations is evidence for the absence of the thing. That's what is proven

>> No.10473610

>>10473607
>No, it proves that these are the same thing.
No, you assumed it to be true, see
"If absense of evidence is evidence of absense that means P(X|~E) < P(X)."

>> No.10473619

>>10473610
There's no assumption being made there, that's just an encoding of the meaning of the sentence "absense of evidence is evidence of absense" into math

>> No.10473656

>>10473619
>There's no assumption being made there, that's just an encoding of the meaning of the sentence "absense of evidence is evidence of absense" into math
You assumed that to be a logical encoding of the meaning, which is precisely the fallacy. See >>10472524

>> No.10473672

>>10473656
That post was already dismantled. Try again.

>> No.10473674

>>10473672
>That post was already dismantled.
What do you mean? It directly dismantles your fallacy and hence lets us conclude that you only have a "proof" at best, not a genuine proof.

>> No.10473681

>>10473674
See >>10472578

>> No.10473689

>>10473681
>See >>10472578
That post is disingenuous, one need look no further than the first question "Why not?" which was answered by the rest of my post.

>> No.10473710

>>10473689
Oh so you mean the rest of the post that was dismantled was your explanation. It was hard to tell since they are a bunch of irrelevant straw men. But thanks for clarifying that.

>> No.10473716

>>10473710
>Oh so you mean the rest of the post that was dismantled was your explanation.
What do you mean?

>> No.10473719

>>10473710
Asking questions dismantles nothing.

>> No.10473722

>>10473716
It's pretty clear English.

>>10473719
And?

>> No.10473738

>>10473722
>It's pretty clear English.
What does it mean?

>> No.10473740

>>10473738
It means that you need to go back to elementary school and learn how to read.

>> No.10473754

>>10473740
>It means that you need to go back to elementary school and learn how to read.
Let me know when you'd like to start posting ingenuously.

>> No.10473760

>>10473656
First paragraph of >>10472524 is just confused about what an event is.It says that an event A may have not been observed directly, and I imagine they're thinking of something like seeing a result on a measuring device that you never actually look at. But in statistics when we're talking about events we are talking about something concrete that is happening in a concrete situation, such as seeing a result on a measuring device at a particular moment in time when you are looking at it. And concrete observations like this are either made or they're not. If you look at the measuring device you observe something, and that something is either a particular result or it's not. Or let's say you have a fire alarm in your house. You are either hearing the alarm going off right now, or you're not. One is an observation which provides evidence that your house is on fire, the other is the absence of that evidence. We're not talking about hypothetically listening to what's happening in your house, which you may or may not do, we're talking about what you hear in your house if you're there listening right now

The second paragraph's alternative meaning of "absence of evidence" as a situation where nothing could possibly serve as evidence is legitimate, but I don't believe that's the meaning that OP intended and I don't believe that's the meaning most people who discuss OP's statement are talking about either. We're talking about a situation where you could observe something that would be evidence but you don't

>> No.10473763

>>10473754
Ironic coming from the guy who won't respond to the rest of my post...

>> No.10473765

>>10473763
>Ironic coming from the guy who won't respond to the rest of my post...
I'm not a "guy", and if your post didn't begin with not one, but two, disingenuous phrases, I would consider reading the remainder..

>> No.10473768

>>10473765
The only one being disingenuous here is the guy making up excuses to not respond to the argument. That's fine, I accept your admission of defeat.

>> No.10473770

>>10473768
>The only one being disingenuous here is the guy making up excuses to not respond to the argument.
The only one that has admitted defeat is the guy/girl who resorts to disingenuous posting instead of presenting honest arguments.

>> No.10473773

>>10473770
Exactly, thank you for finally being honest and admitting defeat.

>> No.10473775

>>10473773
>Exactly, thank you for finally being honest and admitting defeat.
What do you mean?

>> No.10473788

>>10473775
Pretending not to know is disingenuous, so you admit defeat.

>> No.10473789

>>10473788
>Pretending not to know is disingenuous, so you admit defeat.
How is pretending not to know disingenuous? You implied that I was previously being dishonest and that I admitted defeat, neither of which are the case.

>> No.10473806
File: 42 KB, 562x437, haha.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10473806

>>10473789
>How is pretending not to know disingenuous?
>disingenuous
>not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

>> No.10474314

>>10472509
This

>> No.10474332

>>10473765
>I'm not a "guy"
yes you are, stop pretending to be a woman