/sci/ - Science & Math

Absence of evidence _is_ evidence of absence. Just not _proof_ of absence.

Just like having your fingerprints on a murder scene is evidence that you're the murderer.

>>9434896
>Absence of evidence _is_ evidence of absence.
Incorrect..

>Just like having your fingerprints on a murder scene is evidence that you're the murderer.
But fingerprints are evidence, what does that have to do with a situation where there's an absence of evidence?

Great. Lets go invade the Iraqis now.

>>9434905
If your fingerprints are evidence that you're the murdered, then the absence of your fingerprints is evidence that you are not the murderer.

>>9434696
>can't into bayes' theorem

>>9434918
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w5JqQLqqTc

>>9434928
>then the absence of your fingerprints is evidence that you are not the murderer.
Why do you keep mentioning evidence? The OP is about when there's an absence of evidence

>>9434935
>The OP is about when there's an absence of evidence
When is there an absence of evidence?

>>9434931
What does Bayes "theorem" have to do with it?

>>9434696
Is that an argument that God exists possibly?

>>9434938
>When is there an absence of evidence?
I'm not sure what kind of answer you're expecting for this sort of question, there's an absence of evidence before any evidence is discovered, when else?

https://youtu.be/qiNiW4_6R3I
Now let kms please

>>9434943
>there's an absence of evidence before any evidence is discovered
When was no evidence discovered, exactly?

>>9434944
But the person in this video is just arguing against a strawman, he limits himself to "positive evidence", not evidence.

Is he really implying a blood test isn't evidence?

>>9434948
>When was no evidence discovered, exactly?
Before anyone's discovered any.

>>9434944
>all the commenters who BTFO the fedora tipper who made the video

>>9434952
>Before anyone's discovered any.
That's what I'm asking though, when was that? Because it seems that the "absence of evidence" cannot be applied to any current situation, since "evidence" of some kind currently exists. Or you could just be misinterpreting the phrase.

>>9434949
>But the person in this video is just arguing against a strawman, he limits himself to "positive evidence", not evidence.
That's wrong, the exact same argument applies to evidence against something.

>>9434960
>That's what I'm asking though, when was that?
"Before anyone's discovered any" is an interval of time, it's not an event and so asking "when was that?" does not yield any answer other than itself.

>Because it seems that the "absence of evidence" cannot be applied to any current situation, since "evidence" of some kind currently exists.
Would you consider a medical test to look for a disease to be evidence?

>Or you could just be misinterpreting the phrase.
What could be misinterpreted? There's simply no evidence.

>>9434968
>That's wrong, the exact same argument applies to evidence against something.
How so?

>>9434970
>"Before anyone's discovered any" is an interval of time
An interval has a start and an end, I'm asking where it ended.

>Would you consider a medical test to look for a disease to be evidence?
Yes.

>What could be misinterpreted? There's simply no evidence.
When was there no evidence?

>>9434979
The absence of evidence against something is evidence for the absence of that thing's absence. In other words, it is evidence for that thing.

>>9434985
>An interval has a start and an end, I'm asking where it ended.
When evidence is discovered.

>Yes.
So today there's an absence of evidence of all disease occurrences that will be tested for tomorrow.

>When was there no evidence?
Before any evidence was discovered.

>>9434990
>The absence of evidence against something is evidence for the absence of that thing's absence.
How so?

>In other words, it is evidence for that thing.
How do you argue something from nothing?

>>9434993
>When evidence is discovered.
When was that exactly?

>So today there's an absence of evidence of all disease occurrences that will be tested for tomorrow.
Excuse me but where does the phrase "absence of evidence" refer to "all disease occurrences that will be tested for tomorrow"? It just says evidence. If we can't interpret "absence of evidence" as "absence of evidence of X" then neither can you.

>Before any evidence was discovered.
When?

>>9434995
>How so?
>How do you argue something from nothing?
See the video you are responding to.

>>9434998
>When was that exactly?
If you give a specific case I can give you a specific answer, otherwise the general answer remains the same: a time of discovery is exactly at the time of discovery.

>Excuse me but where does the phrase "absence of evidence" refer to "all disease occurrences that will be tested for tomorrow"? It just says evidence.
It's a current situation where there an absence of evidence can be applied.

>When?
See above.

>>9435003
>See the video you are responding to.
The video has already been debunked by myself and in most of the comments underneath it, the person is arguing against a strawman. The blood test in "my cat's blood test is not positive for herpes" is most certainly "evidence" by any reasonable definition, and so there's is no absence of evidence involved.

>>9435007
>If you give a specific case
Why do you keep mentioning a specific case? The OP is about when there's an absence of evidence.

>It's a current situation where there an absence of evidence can be applied.
Yeah, such as?

>>9435008
Your only response to the video is that it only applies to positive evidence, which is false.

>The blood test in "my cat's blood test is not positive for herpes" is most certainly "evidence" by any reasonable definition, and so there's is no absence of evidence involved.
Exactly, so when was there an absence of evidence?

>>9435016
>Why do you keep mentioning a specific case?
Because I've already proved the general case.

>Yeah, such as?
see >>9434993

>>9435016
>Your only response to the video is that it only applies to positive evidence, which is false.
see the image in >>9434949, the person who made the video stated in him/herself

>Exactly, so when was there an absence of evidence?
Before any evidence was discovered.

>>9435026
>Because I've already proved the general case.
What general case? Where did you prove it?

>see >>9434993
See >>9434998

>>9434696
Actually an absence of evidence is exactly that. Do you believe that there are magic pixies moving electrons to make computers work? Of course you don't, the absence of any evidence in favour of the "pixie hypothesis" implies that we should severely doubt that hypothesis, this is exactly how science works. For more information see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference
Godfrey-Smith, Theory and Reality.
In particular chapter 14, Bayesianism and Modern Theories of Evidence.

>>9435032
>What general case? Where did you prove it?
see >>9434970

>See >>9434998
What does this have to do with the current situation?

>>9435030
>see the image in >>9434949, the person who made the video stated in him/herself
I already explained to you, you can replace positive evidence with evidence against and the same argument works.

>Before any evidence was discovered.
When was that? Just give me the general date, within 500 years.

>buy a 3 pound cookie jar
>come home and open it
>no evidence of any cookies
>go back to the shop and ask the manager wtf
>he asks me to prove there are no cookies in the jar they sold me
>show him the empty jar
>he says that absence of evidence of cookies in the jar is not evidence of their absence

>>9435036
>see >>9434970
I don't see any general case or proof.

>What does this have to do with the current situation?
What does the current situation have to do with an absence of evidence?

>>9435037
>I already explained to you, you can replace positive evidence with evidence against and the same argument works.
If you replace it with evidence against then the argument continues to fail to apply to a situation with an absence of evidence, since it still only applies to half of all evidence.

>>9435041
>I don't see any general case or proof.
see >>9434970 (You)

>What does the current situation have to do with an absence of evidence?
There's an absence of evidence in the current situation.

>>9435037
>When was that?
see >>9434970

>>9435044
>If you replace it with evidence against then the argument continues to fail to apply to a situation with an absence of evidence
Yes, so when was there an absence of evidence? Because as far as I can tell, there was never an absence of evidence for as long as human intellect has existed. Therefore the phrase becomes meaningless.

So we can now move on to a real interpretation of the phrase, which is evidence for something. This could be a specific piece of evidence for something, or all the evidence for something, or evidence for the absence of something, etc.

>>9435047
>see >>9434970 (You)
See >>9435041

>There's an absence of evidence in the current situation.
The current situation has evidence for many things, so that's wrong.

>>9435051
>Yes, so when was there an absence of evidence?
Before there was any evidence.

>Because as far as I can tell, there was never an absence of evidence for as long as human intellect has existed. Therefore the phrase becomes meaningless.
How can it be meaningless if you just gave a specific point in time when there was an absence of evidence?

>So we can now move on to a real interpretation of the phrase, which is evidence for something.
Why would you interpret an absence as presence?

>>9435049
>see >>9434970
See >>9435037

>>9435055
>See >>9435041
see >>9434970

>The current situation has evidence for many things, so that's wrong.
Excuse me but where does the phrase "absence of evidence" refer to "evidence for many things"? It just says evidence.

>>9435059
>See >>9435037
see >>9434970

>>9435057
>Before there was any evidence.
OK, so before humans existed, how is this phrase useful then?

>How can it be meaningless if you just gave a specific point in time when there was an absence of evidence?
Because saying there was no evidence for an absence of something before humans existed is redundant. Before there was evidence there was no evidence.

>>9435067
>OK, so before humans existed, how is this phrase useful then?
What do you mean? Back then before humans existed the phrase wouldn't be useful, since no one spoke English.

>Because saying there was no evidence for an absence of something before humans existed is redundant.
How so?

>Before there was evidence there was no evidence.
When was that exactly?

>>9435062
>>9435064
>see >>9434970
See >>9435059

>Excuse me but where does the phrase "absence of evidence" refer to "evidence for many things"? It just says evidence.
Where did I say it refers to evidence for many things? I simply said that your claim that there is an absence of evidence in the current situation is wrong since there is evidence in the current situation. Are you denying that there is evidence at all?

>>9435072
>What do you mean? Back then before humans existed the phrase wouldn't be useful, since no one spoke English.
Yes, that is my point. So you admit that your interpretation has no use. Thank you.

>How so?
See the third sentence in >>9435067

>When was that exactly?
See the first sentence in >>9435067

>>9435078
>See >>9435059
see >>9434970

>Where did I say it refers to evidence for many things?
see >>9435055

>I simply said that your claim that there is an absence of evidence in the current situation is wrong since there is evidence in the current situation.
What evidence?

>Are you denying that there is evidence at all?
I'm a skeptic, not a denier. I refrain from taking a stance until there's evidence regarding the matter.

>>9435084
>Yes, that is my point. So you admit that your interpretation has no use. Thank you.
The interpretation has no use back then before humans existed, of course it has use now since people actually speak English now.

>See the third sentence in >>9435067
That doesn't explain redundancy.

>See the first sentence in >>9435067
That's a question, not a time.

Holy autism

>>9435086
>see >>9434970
See >>9435064

>see >>9435055 (You)
Where did I refer to the "absence of evidence"? I didn't, I referred to the current situation which is not an "absence of evidence."

>What evidence?
Medical tests.

>I'm a skeptic, not a denier. I refrain from taking a stance until there's evidence regarding the matter.
So is there evidence that we have evidence?

>>9435095
>The interpretation has no use back then before humans existed, of course it has use now since people actually speak English now.
But the only time there was an absence of evidence was then, so it has no use now.

>That doesn't explain redundancy.
Yes it does. Evidence of absence is redundant when what is meant is evidence of any kind.

>That's a question, not a time.
The question refers to a time.

>>9435111
>See >>9435064 (You)
see >>9434970

>Where did I refer to the "absence of evidence"?
see >>9435055

>Medical tests.
There is none in the current situation.

>So is there evidence that we have evidence?
Of course not, otherwise there would be no absence of evidence.

>>9435111
>But the only time there was an absence of evidence was then
[citation needed]

>Yes it does. Evidence of absence is redundant when what is meant is evidence of any kind.
It's not dialectically redundant, since Sagan is of course referring to the propensity to use the absence of evidence as evidence of absence (it's not often used as evidence of presence).

>The question refers to a time.
That's a question, not a time.

>>9435112
>see >>9434970
See >>9435078

>see >>9435055 (You)
Nowhere did I write "absence of evidence" in that post. You lose.

>There is none in the current situation.
There are currently medical tests, you lose.

>Of course not, otherwise there would be no absence of evidence.
So there isn't. You lose.

Don't bother replying, you'll have to try again tomorrow.

How did this thread devolve so quickly

>>9435121
>See >>9435078
see >>9434970

>Nowhere did I write "absence of evidence" in that post. You lose.
You wrote "evidence for many things" in response to me referring to an absence of evidence. If you didn't mean it in that situation then your post was simply contentless anyway.

>There are currently medical tests
Not in the current situation.

>you lose.
What do you mean?

>So there isn't.
There isn't what?

>You lose.
What do you mean?

>Don't bother replying, you'll have to try again tomorrow.
Will there be evidence tomorrow?

>>9435120
>[citation needed]
The burden of proof is on you, since you claim it exists. But so far you have failed to even give me an approximate time range when there was an absence of evidence. So you lost.

>It's not dialectically redundant, since Sagan is of course referring to the propensity to use the absence of evidence as evidence of absence (it's not often used as evidence of presence).
As I've already shown, this was never used according to your own interpretation, since there was never a time in human existence when there was an absence of evidence. You lose.

>That's a question, not a time.
The question refers to a time. You lose.

>>9435126
>implying it wasn't devolved at the exact moment OP posted it, and before then.

>>9435131
>The burden of proof is on you, since you claim it exists
What do you mean? I already said I'm a skeptic, what purpose would there be of me providing a proof of existence?

>But so far you have failed to even give me an approximate time range when there was an absence of evidence.
Why would an approximate time range be needed when an exact one can be given?

>You lose.
What do you mean?

>As I've already shown,
Where?

>this was never used according to your own interpretation
I'm not sure what you think is my interpretation, I'm simply making use of Sagan's.

>since there was never a time in human existence when there was an absence of evidence.
[citation needed]

> You lose.
What do you mean?

>The question refers to a time.
That's a question, not a time.

>You lose.
What do you mean?

>>9435133
>>implying it wasn't devolved at the exact moment OP posted it, and before then.
Who are you quoting?

>>9435051
>>9435067
You realize you are arguing with a massively blatant troll rather than an actual person, right?

How is it that on a STEM board there are (presumably university) students who read "absence" and think of the opposite?

Is critical thinking not taught anymore?

>>9435148
>You realize you are arguing with a massively blatant troll rather than an actual person, right?
What do you mean?

>>9434696
there's no "Evidence" in a simulated universe

>>9435148
Yes, of course.

Corrected it a bit:
Absence of evidence SO FAR is not evidence of absence.

>>9435135
>>The burden of proof is on you, since you claim it exists
>What do you mean? I already said I'm a skeptic, what purpose would there be of me providing a proof of existence?
>
>>But so far you have failed to even give me an approximate time range when there was an absence of evidence.
>Why would an approximate time range be needed when an exact one can be given?
>
>>You lose.
>What do you mean?
>
>>As I've already shown,
>Where?
>
>>this was never used according to your own interpretation
>I'm not sure what you think is my interpretation, I'm simply making use of Sagan's.
>
>>since there was never a time in human existence when there was an absence of evidence.
>[citation needed]
>
>> You lose.
>What do you mean?
>
>>The question refers to a time.
>That's a question, not a time.
>
>>You lose.
>What do you mean?
see
>>9435131

I can't speak for math or physics but in paleontology this statement is certainly true

Consider the coelacanth. 65 million years of silence in the fossil record, and BAM, one suddenly shows up in a fish market somewhere. Locals even knew of the fish, and it was still unknown to western scientists.

>>9435236
>Consider the coelacanth. 65 million years of silence in the fossil record, and BAM, one suddenly shows up in a fish market somewhere.
You are confusing proof with evidence. The fact that there was no fossil evidence made it extremely unlikely that the fish existed. Consider that there is essentially an infinite amount of hypothetical animals that have no evidence of existence. Only a very small amount turn out to be real.

>>9435247
Honestly anon no offense but are you literally retarded

People knew the coelacanth existed because there WERE fossils of it but no fossils were found younger than 65 million years old, so people thought it went extinct then. Honestly do a quick google search before talking out of your ass

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth

>>9435247
>You are confusing proof with evidence.
No, I'm only talking about evidence

>>9435255
Retard, by exist I mean existing currently.

>>9434696
>ad ignorantiam
No shit, that's fallacies 101

>>9435260
>Retard
Oh, the irony...

>>9435260
>The fact that there was no fossil evidence made it extremely unlikely that the fish existed. Consider that there is essentially an infinite amount of hypothetical animals that have no evidence of existence.
what the fuck do you mean, you said the coelacanth was a "hypothetical animal" and there was "no fossil evidence"

>>9435247
>You are confusing proof with evidence. The fact that there was no fossil evidence made it extremely unlikely that the fish existed. Consider that there is essentially an infinite amount of hypothetical animals that have no evidence of existence. Only a very small amount turn out to be real.

>>9435265
There was no recent fossil evidence and its existence was hypothetical.

>>9435277
>there was no fossil evidence
>hypothetical animals that have no evidence of existence
>no evidence of existence

ITT: People who understand probability theory arguing with people who don't.

>>9435281
See >>9435260

But if you want to be obtuse, the argument applies the same to animals which never existed.

>>9435262
This is not an argument from ignorance, since the conclusion is not that the absence is true, but that there is merely evidence for it.

>>9435288
>This is not an argument from ignorance, since the conclusion is not that the absence is true, but that there is merely evidence for it
Of course it's an argument from ignorance, you should at least try to read a simple source like the Wikipedia page before spouting such nonsense.

Here, have a read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Distinguishing_absence_of_evidence_from_evidence_of_absence

>>9435292
> It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.
Thank you for proving my point. Saying that there is evidence for something does not mean you asserting that thing is true. Saying that something has not yet been proven true is not the same as saying there is an absence of evidence for that thing.

>>9435297
>Saying that something has not yet been proven true is not the same as saying there is an absence of evidence for that thing.
Who said anything about "proven"?

>>9435292
>Here, have a read:
The distinction on wikipedia here isn't quite right. If a search process COULD have yielded a piece of evidence for a hypothesis H, then probability theory requires that the fact that it did not is ALWAYS evidence against H. It may be very weak evidence, but is always nonzero. The more confident you are that a search would have found what you were looking for it is was there, the stronger this evidence is; but it can never, ever be zero.

>>9434696

Atheist belief is as irrational as other theist beliefs. If you deny this you're either a brainlet, or ignorant towards the meaning of atheism.

Vigorously believing that something exists without any evidence (theism) is AS IRRATIONAL as vigorously believing that something /doesn't/ exist (atheism).

Not believing in any religion, but also realising that you can't deny the fact that there's a possibility that a supernatural/"godly" entity exists is the rational and scientific belief.

t. agnost

Is this correct?

B is evidence of A iff P(A | B) > P(A)
C is evidence of absence if A iff P(A | C) < P(A)
D is independent of A iff P(A | D) = P(A)

So absence of any evidence B can be either C or D, so it isn't true in general that it has to be C (evidence of absence).

>>9435313
>The distinction on wikipedia here isn't quite right
Where does it contradict what you wrote?

>>9435312
The article you just posted, dumbass!

It says "[An argument from ignorance] asserts that a proposition IS TRUE because it has not yet been PROVEN false or a proposition IS FALSE because it has not yet been PROVEN true."

For anyone arguing that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence: why can your same reasoning not be used to say that an absence of evidence is evidence of presence?

>>9435315
>atheism
a-theism
(the lack of) (belief in God)
>vigorously believing
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

>t. agnostic
a-gnostic
(the lack of) (having knowledge)
Yes, clearly you are agnostic, at least of what atheism is.

>>9435328
Because the absence of evidence for X is not evidence of presence of X. Obviously the phrase is referring to evidence of and absence of the same thing, not opposing things.

>>9435337
>Obviously the phrase is referring to evidence of and absence of the same thing, not opposing things.
The phrase refers to evidence of absence and absence of evidence, how are "evidence" and "absence" "the same thing"?

>>9435340
They aren't, what they are *of* is the same thing, you illiterate baboon.

>>9435347
evidence of "absence"
absence of "evidence"

>absence
>evidence
>the same thing

>>9435331

>>9435353
Wow you're dumb. The question is evidence of what and absence of what. The absence of evidence of X is evidence of absence of X.

>>9435320
Hm... on second reading, I think it doesn't actually say any such contradictions. I feel it suggests them, but that could be due to my interpretation.

If you look through your telescope at a place where you imagine Saturn to be, and you don't see anything because the lid is still on your telescope, that's a genuine case of absence of evidence. You haven't learned anything either way, and there is no way you could have gotten a positive result out of it.

But imagine that you want to confirm the presence of Saturn (you just heard someone claim its existence for the first time ever, somewhere in the middle ages) and you point your telescope in a direction where it reasonably might be. You don't see anything, because the direction you are looking at is only based on the roughest of guesses. Then that observation there is legitimate evidence against the existence of Saturn. It is _very small_ evidence, certainly; your confidence that you WOULD have seen Saturn if it existed is very low (because you only guessed its location), and so the negative evidence is also tiny. But it is nonzero, for you COULD have found it with a lucky guess.

My reading of the wikipedia article suggests that it is talking of my second case above as "absence of evidence". And that is something I would argue against. If they really mean my first example only, then I have no point against it.

>>9435364
>It is _very small_ evidence, certainly; your confidence that you WOULD have seen Saturn if it existed is very low (because you only guessed its location), and so the negative evidence is also tiny. But it is nonzero, for you COULD have found it with a lucky guess.
I think this is why the Wikipedia article includes "(option eliminated by careful research design)."

>>9435364
>If you look through your telescope at a place where you imagine Saturn to be, and you don't see anything because the lid is still on your telescope, that's a genuine case of absence of evidence. You haven't learned anything either way, and there is no way you could have gotten a positive result out of it.
Consider the probability of you having left the lid on your telescope. If it is not 1 then you did in fact gain evidence that Saturn isn't there. Of course, with hindsight after discovering you left the lid on, the probability reverts back.

>>9435362
>The question is evidence of what and absence of what. The absence of evidence of X is evidence of absence of X.

> absence of "evidence of X"
> evidence of "absence of X"
>"the same thing"


embarassing, what level of eduaction do you have?

>>9435376
They are indeed the same thing as long as evidence of X is even possible.

>>9435378
> "evidence of X"
>"absence of X"
>"the same thing"

>>9435382
I didn't say they were. Embarassing, what level of eduaction do you have?

>>9435387
>I didn't say they were.
>"They aren't, what they are *of* is the same thing, you illiterate baboon."

>>9435389
What they are of is X, you illiterate baboon. X is the same thing as X

>>9435392
>X is the same thing as X
Did you have anything substantial to stay? Backpedaling after repeatedly claiming evidence is the same as absence is shameful at this point

>>9435399
Where did I do that? Do you have anything substantial to say or are you just going to keep lying?

>>9435402
>Where did I do that?
>"They aren't, what they are *of* is the same thing, you illiterate baboon."

>>9435405
>They aren't
Only a severe retard would quote me specifically saying they aren't the same thing while claiming I'm saying they are the same thing.

>>9435409
>specifically saying they aren't the same thing
>"what they are *of* is the same thing"
>is

>>9435417
What they are of is X. How many times do I have to explain this to you retard?

Wait... you couldn't possibly be pretending...

It's been fun, you're a shit troll though.

>>9435433
>It's been fun, you're a shit troll though.
I wish I was the troll, I wouldn't do something as absurd as claiming "absence" is the same as "evidence".

>>9435375
I agree -- and if we are going to be that anal about it (which I support), then absence of evidence is very rare when you are actively looking for evidence. Which is why I find that wikipedia section to suggest, but not outright state, a distinction that doesn't actually exist.

>>9435441
>I wish I was the troll, I wouldn't do something as absurd as claiming "absence" is the same as "evidence".
I don't think I have seen anyone claim this. I have seen people claim that "absence of evidence" is the same as "evidence of absence", but that is a completely different thing than what you are talking about.

>>9435446
>I have seen people claim that "absence of evidence" is the same as "evidence of absence", but that is a completely different thing than what you are talking about.
Of course that's completely different, but equally absurd.

>>9434696
There's an absence of evidence of string theory, but that doesn't mean there's evidence of absence of string theory

>>9435446
Don't respond to OP, he's just trolling.

>>9435453
Any absence of possible evidence of string theory is evidence against it.

>>9435459
>Any absence of possible evidence of string theory is evidence against it.
But we don't even have the technology to collect any relevant evidence yet, how could there be evidence against it?

absence of evidence is evidence of nothing

If absence of evidence is evidence of absence, does that also mean evidence of absence is absence of evidence?

>>9435468
in addition to not being evidence of absence

>>9435461
Could we have had the technology to collect evidence? If evidence is possible then its absence is evidence of absence.

>>9435487
>Could we have had the technology to collect evidence?
No.

>>9435471
If there is evidence of absence of X then there is an absence of an absence of that evidence of absence of X, which is an absence of evidence of X.

>>9435495
What is X? I was just talking about evidence

>>9435495
So it's impossible that we could have more rapidly progressed relevant technology like gravitational wave detectors? I don't see why.

>>9435497
X is something for which evidence is possible. Any possible evidence can be described this way, so you comment is irrelevant.

>>9435489
So it's impossible that we could have more rapidly progressed relevant technology like gravitational wave detectors? I don't see why.

>>9435506
>So it's impossible that we could have more rapidly progressed relevant technology like gravitational wave detectors?
I don't know, there's an absence of evidence to support the idea.

>>9435518
So there is evidence to support it, good.

>>9435520
>So there is evidence to support it, good.
What evidence?

>>9435503
>X is something for which evidence is possible. Any possible evidence can be described this way, so you comment is irrelevant.
Why are you strawmanning?

>>9434696
Seems obvious

>>9434696
What if your study is adequately powered? Say you have a 90% chance of rejecting null given alternative is true. Then wouldn't a null finding be evidence of absence?

>>9436285
A finding from a study is evidence.

The extraordinary claim is that life only exists on Earth and requires extraordinary evidence to override the following facts:

>life exists on Earth
>life spontaneously appeared here as soon as the planet was stable enough to
>life is incredibly robust
>there is strong evidence that life existed on Mars at some stage
>life as we know it consists of the most common elements in the universe
>the molecules of Earth life like amino acids and simple sugars were delivered en-masse with a nice blob of water by the early bombardment
>even the modest observation surveys to date show that planets are exceedingly common

Any handwave about this being possible elsewhere is to accept some magic fairy dust as a factor.

>>9436302
>The extraordinary claim is that life only exists on Earth

How is that an extraordinary claim?
1) Have we observed life on earth? Indeed
2) Have we observed life elsewhere? Nope.

Therefore it is not unreasonable to assume life does not exist elsewhere. Now, it being reasonable does not imply it is true. It just implies it is the most likely to be true given the evidence.

I mean, is it an extraordinary claim to say that there is no one living in that abandoned building? It is not, but there may still be some hobo living in that abandoned building.

>>9436309

Actually it is unreasonable to handwave that life exists elsewhere, considering the list of observed facts. To do so implies that there is some extreme improbability to it verging on supernatural. We have 100% certainty that life can appear spontaneously on an exceedingly common kind of planet, from nothing but exceedingly common elements and molecules.

So again, it is no extraordinary claim to say that life exists elsewhere but a reasonable theory based on known facts. To be contrary is to make the extraordinary claim based on no evidence.

>>9436322
>exceedingly common kind of planet
>What is the rare earth hypothesis

>>9436329

Rare earth is a brainfart based on no evidence at all.

>>9436329
>>What is the rare earth hypothesis
just a hypothesis (a geuss)

>>9436322
>We have 100% certainty that life can appear spontaneously on an exceedingly common kind of planet, from nothing but exceedingly common elements and molecules.

Yeah but we also know how unlikely it is.

>a reasonable theory based on known facts
Which facts? None of the facts you listed imply life has to be as common as you wish it were. The reality is that we have looked, and there is nothing. That is hard evidence, in contrast of your bullshit "reasons".

>>9436335
>The reality is that we have looked, and there is nothing

Looked at what, the whole galaxy? You have absolutely no idea do you? Only a tiny sliver of bandwidth of a tiny section of sky has been surveyed. Again we have hard evidence that complex intelligent life can spontaneously appear from the most commonly available elements and molecules in the universe. To say that can't happen anywhere else is to imply that there is some magic to it, and likely a creationist myth.

>>9436330
>based on no evidence at all.
Except that evidence for extraterrestrial life is clearly not forthcoming. Which leads us to ask "why?" One answer to that is that the conditions for life (or at the very least complex life) are much rare than you might think.

>>9436345

Lack of evidence is not proof. >>9436302 is facts, therefore reasonable evidence to base a theory on. To ignore those facts is extraordinary and requires some extraordinary proof, ie proof of god or some other factor specific to this single planet of countless.

>>9436342
>Looked at what, the whole galaxy?
We have looked as far as our measuring devices have allowed us to look. That means, we have gone as far as the evidence has taken us.

No amount of hypothetical "b-but look! Life can appear out of nowhere from common material" means anything when compared to what we are actually measuring in practice.

>>9436350
>Lack of evidence is not proof
Lack of evidence for one hypothesis should make us doubt the hypothesis and, further, require us to put forward alternatives that could explain the lack of evidence.

>>9436352

No "we" have not looked at hardly anything. Kepler looked a small section of sky, that's it. Do you have any concept how many stars there are? You are ignorant or lying.

>>9434696
>>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
What is the context of this quote?

>>9436359
Dude, your autism is showing. I will sum up my points in just one argument:

>Do you have any concept how many stars there are?
I know the exact number of stars that have nearby planets with life that we know of.

1.

>>9436354

But there is evidence to extrapolate from. Life exists, we are proof of that. There is nothing special about our composition or our planet other than we have not observed any other solar system with life yet.

To use the hobo analogy upthread, if I look out my window and see one hobo outside my house, is it reasonable to extrapolate that because I only see one there is only one hobo? I haven't gone out of the house or even looked through a different window, but I can reasonably say that if there is one hobo, there may be more.

As per OP, Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

>>9436365

Oh ad-hominem? Thanks for conceding defeat. It's clear that intelligent life isn't as prevalent on this planet as some would assume either.

>>9436360
>What is the context of this quote?
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Rees
>As quoted in Project Cyclops: A Design Study of a System for Detecting Extraterrestrial Intelligent Life (1971) by Bernard M. Oliver, and John Billingham, Ch. 2 : Life in the Universe, p. 3 ;

>>9436369
>But there is evidence to extrapolate from. Life exists, we are proof of that

>The diophantine equation a^6 + 2*b^6 = 4*c^6 has a solution, so it is reasonable to assume other solutions exist

Literally your argument in a nutshell.

based carl sagan

>>9436375

Non-sequitur? Good day sir.

>>9436369
>But there is evidence to extrapolate from
You can't extrapolate from a single data point.
>hobo analogy
Specious reasoning. You already [math] know [/math] there is more than one hobo outside, so it automatically leads you to the conclusion that you're being unreasonable it assume there is only one.

>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Science is Bayesian, so absence of evidence means we can still update our posterior belief in the hypothesis.

>>9436377
Do you even know what that word means? I am just pointing how the existence of a solution does not imply the existence of other solutions. Or even better, I am just pointing out how the existence of a solution does not imply it is reasonable to assume other solutions exist.

>>9436365

So of the one planet that humans have actually been on, there is 100% certainty of life with proof that it appeared almost straight away from nothing but the most common building blocks in the univers. How does that extrapolate to life being rare elsewhere, considering humans have never been or looked elsewhere other than the most peripheral skim of some bodies of our own solar system.

>>9436379

No, you are handwaving hard proof with an unrelated train of thought, a NON-SEQITUR. The point you made stands, but has no relation at all to the facts of >>9436302

>>9436383
It is called an analogy...

>>9436384
>It is called an analogy...
A false analogy.

>>9436378

You have no data to disprove this theory. What is it about life that makes you believe that it is rare? There is evidence that life appeared spontaneously on earth, there is nothing apparently special about earth other than it has life. To say that this is proof that life only exists on earth is circular reasoning.

>>9436385
This is embarrassing, to say the least, man. I have no problem with you believing in what you wanna believe, Alex Jones, but I do hope that you never get inside the hearing radius of a physicist just in fear of your retardation wasting their thoughts.

>>9436386
>What is it about life that makes you believe that it is rare?
The lack of evidence for it...I can't help feel I'm just going round in circles now. You have a hypothesis, no evidence exist in favour of that hypothesis, as such we doubt should be doubting that and trying to find a reason why that hypothesis failed. In this case the most parsimonious explanation is that life (or perhaps complex life) is incredibly rare.

>>9436387
>but I do hope that you never get inside the hearing radius of a physicist just in fear of your retardation wasting their thoughts.
I am a physicist (my PhD was in statistical mechanics).

>>9436389
>PhD in Statistical Mechanics
>Doesn't understand statistics or baysianism
Fucking kek.

>>9436387

Wow why so butthurt? Are u mad?

>>9436389
Wew lad. This is a sad day for academics around the world. I'm not saying you are stupid, you are probably smart. But the fact that your educators failed to instill in you proper scientific culture just shows how much academia has fallen.

>>9436390
>>Doesn't understand statistics or baysianism
Speak for yourself.

>>9436394
>your educators failed to instill in you proper scientific culture
What do you mean?

>>9436391
Don't worry. I'm not yet angry enough to start posting stuff like "u mad?". I mean, you know that when someone starts using 2008 9gag speak that is when veins are fucking popping left and right.

>>9436396
Well, being a scientist is about being correct about facts. And indeed, the facts you have listed are that, facts. But your conclusions from those facts are what bother me, and that is my point.

Back in the day, the proper gentleman scientist would not only be known for his profound knowledge of facts but also on their commitment to having the right opinions too. You have, I am sorry, retarded opinions.

>>9436399

You mean you don't like the conclusion so you ignore the facts.

>>9436399
>You have, I am sorry, retarded opinions.
I'm not sure what you mean, I haven't posted any "opinions".

>>9436400
Nope. I am saying your facts are right, but the conclusion you make from them is frankly stupid.

>>9436401
>I'm not sure what you mean, I haven't posted any "opinions".

Well, that is yet another stupid opinion. Because even if I concede that it is unreasonable to assume only earth contains life that still does not imply life exists elsewhere. It is not a fact that life must exist elsewhere, regardless of how much the odds may be on your side according to your facts.

Again, pure lack of culture.

>>9436397

Pal just admit you cannot avoid the logic so you resort to cheap-shot ad-hominem, appeal to authority and a few other baseline logical fallacies. You are defeated and should do the honourable thing and kill yourself. To persist is to just extend your embarrassment to yourself, your family and your species.

>>9436402

So you believe it's "frankly stupid" to say that it's possible for life to exist outside of Earth? Is that what you're saying? I honestly feel bad for you.

>>9436403
>You are defeated and should do the honourable thing and kill yourself. To persist is to just extend your embarrassment to yourself, your family and your species.
cringe

is this copypasted from some youtube comment?

>>9436403
>tells me to kill myself
Talk about cheap!

I am sorry if I struck a nerve with that post mate. Totally wasn't my intention ;^)

>>9436402
>Well, that is yet another stupid opinion.
That was actually another fact, not an "opinion".

Next?

>>9436408
Nope. Please remember your first post:
>>9436302
>The extraordinary claim is that life only exists on Earth

You said it is an extraordinary claim that life only exists on earth. I say no, it is just a normal claim. That is why I then say:

>>9436309
>Therefore it is not unreasonable to assume life does not exist elsewhere

>>9436411
>Next?
Nice, your posts are devolving into bitchy 15 year old girl facebook comments. It is amazing.

>>9436415
>Nice, your posts are devolving into bitchy 15 year old girl facebook comments.
If you keep confusing facts with opinions, there's not much more to say.

Next?

>>9436417
You know I remember back in middle school grammar class there was a section in which we were given sentences and the problem was deciding based on the wording and context if the sentence was a fact or an opinion.

I take it that you failed that test?

>>9436420
>I take it that you failed that test?
Next?

>>9436412
>herefore it is not unreasonable to assume life does not exist elsewhere

Based on what evidence? What you are actually saying is that observable chemical reactions are only possible on this one planet in the entire universe. That is a very poor train of thought. You have already conceded the point by resorting to logical fallicy therefore I will no longer waste time engaging you.

Here's a horrifying thought: There are people that actually believe that the sum total of consciousness and life in the entire universe exists only here on Earth. I know many people like that, and what is absolutely horrifying is these people have a propensity to ignore and argue against the evidence of climate change. God help us.

>>9436402
>Again, pure lack of culture.
What does that have to do with science?

>>9434948
When we looked for it where it was expected to be found.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence if we have a hypothesis that predicts that such evidence should exist.

For example, if you hypothesize that I have misplaced my car keys in my pockets, then we expect to find my car keys in my pockets. If we then look in my pockets yet to do not find my car keys, then the absence of evidence for the existence of my car keys in my pockets, is evidence against the hypothesis that my car keys are in my pockets.

Again, put simply, absence of evidence is evidence of absence when we EXPECT the evidence to exist given some hypothesis.

>>9437508
>Again, put simply, absence of evidence is evidence of absence when we EXPECT the evidence to exist given some hypothesis.
That claim is far weaker than what you can prove. We do not need to expect the evidence to exist if the hypothesis is true, the hypothesis being true only needs to increase the chance of that evidence existing by any amount, however small. This is the same thing as saying that the evidence is evidence for the hypothesis, so it doesn't even need to be said. The only condition necessary beyond the proper definition of evidence is that the evidence has a nonzero chance of existing, which is true if the hypothesis has a nonzero chance of being true.

>>9437508

In many instances, such as theory of extra-solar life, there has only been the slightest investigation with the most rudimentary of instruments. This lack of evidence neither proves NOR DISPROVES the existence of external biospheres, yet as clearly shown in this thread many believe that this lack of evidence does in fact disprove the theory.

>>9438098
>This lack of evidence neither proves NOR DISPROVES the existence of external biospheres
Very true. But the lack of evidence for the extrasolar life does provide *evidence* against that theory. Pretty weak evidence, but still nonzero.

>yet as clearly shown in this thread many believe that this lack of evidence does in fact disprove the theory.
It seems to me that these people do not understand the notion that evidence is a quantitative matter. These people do not seem to grasp how there can be nonzero and even substantial evidence against the idea, which is nonetheless insufficient to overcome the prior probability as derived from some background theory, which is therefore still the rational uncertain judgement until the weight of contrary evidence becomes much greater than it yet is.

>>9437508
damn those are some nice titties on this blu board

>>9438184

The lack of evidence is only relevant in the instance of an actual attempt to gather evidence. To date there hasn't been any real mainstream attempt to do so.

>>9438184
>But the lack of evidence for the extrasolar life does provide *evidence* against that theory.
Is it evidence or not?

>>9438202
That's false. It is completely possible for evidence to exist without looking for it. For example, if alens visited earth in plain sight, that would be evidence that aliens exist. The lack of this event is evidence that they don't.

>>9438340
>without looking for it
>in plain sight

>>9438345
>The lack of evidence is only relevant in the instance of an actual attempt to gather evidence.

>>9438202
There has been such an attempt. Just not a very substantial one, which means the lack of any confirming evidence found is only very weak counterevidence.

>>9438329
Yes, it is. But very slight evidence, which is not strong enough to overpower the prior probability.

>>9438400
>Yes, it is. But very slight evidence, which is not strong enough to overpower the prior probability.
If the lack of evidence can be evidence, can evidence be a lack of evidence?

>>9434896
First post best post

>>9438434
>First post best post
But that post is wrong from the get go, I didn't even bother reading past the first incorrect sentence.

>>9434939
The posterior priority of whatever we fail to find evidence for will be less than the prior probability

>>9438443
>>>9434939
> The posterior priority of whatever
> we fail to find evidence for
> will be less than the prior probability>priority
*probability

>>9438443
>The posterior priority of whatever we fail to find evidence for will be less than the prior probability
Why are you arbitrarily changing probabilities without any evidence?

>>9438402
The lack of evidence FOR extrasolar life constitutes evidence AGAINST it.

>>9438563
>The lack of evidence FOR extrasolar life constitutes evidence AGAINST it.
Then you have evidence, so what does it have to do with the original claim regarding an absence of evidence?

>>9438571
Nothing? That's not what I was talking about at all.

>>9438571
And yet you have still not been able to provide a single example of this "absence of evidence" you keep whining about.

a thread died for this retardation

>>9434696
I'm pretty sure millions of people had said that before Sagan was even born.

>>9434970
>>9434968
what the fuck is going on

>>9438812
Just a retard trolling with an obtuse interpretation.

>>9438804

Prove it.

>>9438792
>And yet you have still not been able to provide a single example of this "absence of evidence" you keep whining about.
What do you mean?

>>9439059
An "example" is a thing characteristic of its kind or illustrating a general rule.

An "absence of evidence" is something to claim to understand.

Are you pretending to be retarded?

>>9439481
>An "example" is a thing characteristic of its kind or illustrating a general rule.
>An "absence of evidence" is something to claim to understand.
>Are you pretending to be retarded?
I'm not sure what this had to do with my post that you replied to. What are you confused by?

>>9434896
No one knows the difference between evidence and proof so don't bother.

>>9434696
Is this supposed to be a controversial statement? It's both intuitively and mathematically true.

>>9439694
Way are you confused by in my post?

>>9439782
The thing is that it's mathematically false, as outlined several times in this thread.

>>9439875

In context, there's not finding proof after formulating experiments to find it, and there's not even bothering to look before making your mind up. Only one of these is scientific.

>>9440115
I'm not sure I understand what this has to do with the topic at hand.

>>9440146

Oh you're a retard, sorry my bad carry on.

>>9439875
>The thing is that it's mathematically false
Proof?

>>9440115
>there's not finding proof after formulating experiments to find it
You seem to be confusing proof with evidence, this thread is about evidence.

>>9440507
>Proof?
If event E is evidence for hypothesis H, that is P(H|E) > P(H), then because P(H) is a weighted average of P(H|E) and P(H|~E), it follows that P(H|~E) < P(H), which means that P(~H|~E) > P(~H). Which makes ~E evidence for ~H, i.e. absence-of-E evidence for absence-of-H.

>>9440507
>Proof?
If event E is evidence for hypothesis H, that is P(H|E) > P(H), then because P(H) is a weighted average of P(H|E) and P(H|~E), it follows that P(H|~E) < P(H), which means that P(~H|~E) > P(~H). Which makes ~E evidence for ~H, i.e. absence-of-E evidence for absence-of-H. Thus, the absence of a piece of evidence E for H is itself evidence of not-H (or "absence of H").

>>9440567
Logical negation is not a good representation of what "absence" means.

>>9440567
>Which makes ~E evidence for ~H, i.e. absence-of-E
You've defined evidence of absence ~E as absence of evidence (which is what you're supposed to show), so the argument is invalid.

>>9440587
No. E is "evidence for H" if P(H|E) > P(H) (that's what "evidence" means). ~E is "absence of [a specific piece of] evidence for H". ~H is "absence of H" in the slightly artificial but clearly meaningful way. I have SHOWN how "absence of [a specific piece of] evidence for H" has the defining property of being evidence for "absence of H", not assumed it.

So more explicitly, I have shown that under the probability-theoretic definition of "evidence", <the absence of a specific piece of evidence for H is a form of evidence for the absence of H (that is, ~H)>.

If you, or >>9440572, are claiming that I am grasping at straws here to give a mathematical fleshing-out of the informal saying "absence of evidence is [not?] evidence of absence" in a form that supports my point, then I am sympathetic to that claim. But I am going to require an alternative mathematical interpretation of that saying, with different properties, before I take that complaint seriously.

>>9440609
>~H is "absence of H" in the slightly artificial but clearly meaningful way.
Actually, a very artificial way, since H and ~H are both evidence, and hence the presence of either precludes there being an absence of evidence.

>>9434696

This was a fine point for 1970's man, but I think 2018 man could do better to focus on this:

>evidence of presence is just what it seems like
>sometimes evidence is conclusive

>>9440609
>~E is "absence of [a specific piece of] evidence for H"
No, ~E is be definition the complement of E. Your definition fogs the distinction between P(H) where E is absent, and P(H|E) where E is also absent under your definition, which is where your confusion is coming from.

>>9440638
>and P(H|E) where E is also absent under your definition
P(H|~E)*

>>9440630
H and ~H are hypotheses, not evidence.

>>9440638
>No, ~E is be definition the complement of E.
Right, AKA "absence of E". When E refers to a specific piece of potential evidence, there is a clear meaning of "absence of that piece of potential evidence".

>Your definition fogs the distinction between P(H) where E is absent, and P(H|E) where E is also absent under your definition, which is where your confusion is coming from.
No. You are confusing "absence of evidence ABOUT H" with "absence of evidence FOR H". I am talking strictly about the latter, while your example describes the former.

>>9440677
>H and ~H are hypotheses, not evidence.
It should have read "E and ~E".

>>9440677
>Right, AKA "absence of E"
This is what needs to be shown.

>>9440677
>When E refers to a specific piece of potential evidence, there is a clear meaning of "absence of that piece of potential evidence".
Right, and its absence does not imply that the complementary evidence is present.

>>9440677
>You are confusing "absence of evidence ABOUT H" with "absence of evidence FOR H". I am talking strictly about the latter, while your example describes the former.
Then your argument has nothing to do with the relevant claim.

>>9440684
E and ~E are both evidence, but only one of them is evidence for H. As I said in >>9440677, I am in >>9440567 >>9440609 talking strictly about evidence for H, not evidence *about* H.

>>9440685
When E is a binary event, then ~E is absence of E. That's what the word "absence" means. My interpretation of "absence of H" is debatable, but this part is completely standard.

>>9440690
>Right, and its absence does not imply that the complementary evidence is present.
"the complementary evidence"? I have shown that ~E *IS* counterevidence, in that P(~H|~E) > P(~H).

>>9440696
>"the complementary evidence"?
Yes, ~E.

>I have shown that ~E *IS* counterevidence, in that P(~H|~E) > P(~H).
I'm not sure what the relevance of this is. The absence of E does not imply that the complementary evidence is present.

>>9440696
>My interpretation of "absence of H" is debatable
Very debatable. Your definition fogs the distinction between P(H) where E is absent, and P(H|~E) where E is also absent under your definition, which is where your confusion is coming from.

>>9440696
>When E is a binary event
Why is E a binary event?

>>9440762
>>9440765
>>9440769
Do you all understand what an event is, in probability theory?

An event E is a thing that might happen or might not happen; a binary possibility. An event could be, for example, "I find a dinosaur skull that can be dated between 45 and 55 million years ago, during 2015 and 2020". Either that will happen, or it will not happen.

An event E is "evidence for hypothesis H" if E-happening would increase the probability of H, that is, P(H|E) > P(H). For example, H might be the hypothesis "some dinosaurs survived the 65MYA mass extinction until well past 60MYA". This becomes more likely if the event E above were to happen.

For an event E, ~E denotes the negation of the event, that is, the case of E not happening. For the above example, ~E is "I do not find a dinosaur skull that can be dated between 45 and 55 million years ago, during 2015 and 2020". Either E or ~E will end up being the case.

Thus, for any event E, either E or ~E is the case, even if we do not yet know which one. If E is not the case, then ~E is the case.

Now, I have shown in >>9440567 (I don't think anyone has issues with the algebra) that if P(H|E) > P(H) -- that is, "event E would be evidence for hypothesis H if observed" -- then it follows that P(~H|~E) > P(~H) , i.e. "event ~E would be evidence for hypothesis ~H if observed", or equivalently, "event E would be evidence for hypothesis ~H if NOT observed".

Thus, the absence of a specific event that would provide evidence for H, provides evidence for ~H.

>>9440821
>An event E is a thing that might happen or might not happen; a binary possibility.
You continue to fail to distinguish between "might not happen" and "~E happening", which is where your confusion is coming from.

>>9440821
>An event E is a thing that might happen or might not happen; a binary possibility.
Why redundantly call it a binary event then?

>>9440847
So you do not, in fact, understand what events are, then? "~E happening" is equivalent to "E not happening". It's a negation.

~ is not a "semantic opposite" sort of thing like you learn in primary school. If E is "it's very warm in my home", then ~E is not "it's very cold in my home". ~E is "it's NOT very warm in my home".

>>9440821
Don't even bother, he is just going to demand that you follow his interpretation of "absence of evidence" as an absence of evidence for or against H, which is an impossibility. When asked for an example of this "absence of evidence" in the real world, he will avoid answering, because he's a shitty troll.

>>9440858
>Why redundantly call it a binary event then?
Because apparently people were not understanding the notion, so I felt I needed to clarify. Obviously I have still not quite succeeded.

>>9440862
>So you do not, in fact, understand what events are, then? "~E happening" is equivalent to "E not happening". It's a negation.
I'm not sure what this has to do with my post. My reply was simply pointing out how the poster has conflated two separate cases, P(H) and P(H|~E).

>>9440866
>Don't even bother, he is just going to demand that you follow his interpretation of "absence of evidence" as an absence of evidence for or against H, which is an impossibility.
I'm not a "he".

>>9440866
>When asked for an example of this "absence of evidence" in the real world, he will avoid answering, because he's a shitty troll.
What do you mean? There's an absence of evidence regarding anything taking place outside of the observable universe.

>>9440866
>Don't even bother, he is just going to demand that you follow his interpretation of "absence of evidence" as an absence of evidence for or against H, which is an impossibility.
I interpret "absence of evidence" as "no evidence is present", any other interpretation would require evidence being present, and so there would be no absence of evidence.

>>9440867
>Because apparently people were not understanding the notion, so I felt I needed to clarify. Obviously I have still not quite succeeded.
If you change the "binary event" in >>9440821 to "E = I find a dinosaur skull that can be dated between 45 and 55 million years ago in 2019", then this evidence is absent, while ~E is also absent.

>>9440894
Which makes E not evidence, because P(E) = 0, and thus P(H|E) is undefined. Which means that this is not a case of a piece of evidence being absent, for the event E would not be a piece of evidence for H.

>>9440914
>because P(E) = 0
Why?

>>9440884
So you can only give examples where evidence is already impossible, thanks for proving my point. When evidence is possible, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. This is the only time this phrase is actually going to be applied.

>>9440887
>I interpret "absence of evidence" as "no evidence is present", any other interpretation would require evidence being present, and so there would be no absence of evidence.
Evidence has been present for as long as man has existed, so your interpretation is useless. Oh you meant evidence regarding a specific hypothesis? Sorry the phrase doesn't say that, so you're wrong.

>>9440924
>When evidence is possible
This is a meaningless notion.

>>9440924
>Evidence has been present for as long as man has existed
[citation needed]

>>9440914
>Which makes E not evidence
Wrong. "I find a dinosaur skull that can be dated between 45 and 55 million years ago in 2019" is evidence for "I find a dinosaur skull that can be dated between 45 and 55 million years ago, during 2015 and 2020".

Next?

>>9440930
>This is a meaningless notion.
This is elementary, P(E) > 0.

>>9440935
So no evidence regarding anything currently exists? Because that is what you would have to argue to claim that there is an "absence of evidence."

>>9440924
>So you can only give examples where evidence is already impossible, thanks for proving my point.
There are already several other examples in this thread, you should try reading the conversation before interjecting with absurdities. There's an absence of evidence regarding many unsolved murders, occurrences of diseases, etc.

>>9440943
>This is elementary, P(E) > 0.
Then "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" is a non-sequitur.

>>9440943
>So no evidence regarding anything currently exists?
There's an absence of evidence regarding the converse (note that this isn't evidence of absence, since evidence could be discovered).

>>9434949
>Blood test is not positive for herpes

The analogous situation is not taking the test at all, and claiming that there is no evidence that you have herpes

>>9440945
>>9440945
>There are already several other examples in this thread
By definition there cannot be, since an absence of possible evidence for or against a hypothesis implies an absence of possible evidence for a hypothesis, which is equivalent to evidence against the hypothesis.

So even if you could point to one which you obviously can't, whatever you pointed to would logically not be what you're claiming it to be.

>There's an absence of evidence regarding many unsolved murders, occurrences of diseases, etc.
If there is an absence of possible evidence for someone being the murderer then that is evidence that person is not the murderer. If there is an absence of possible evidence that a disease is present, that is evidence that the disease is not present.

>>9440955
>The analogous situation is not taking the test at all, and claiming that there is no evidence that you have herpes
That's correct.

>>9440956
>By definition there cannot be
What do you mean?

>>9440948
>Then "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" is a non-sequitur.
That doesn't follow.

>There's an absence of evidence regarding the converse
This doesn't answer the question. Does evidence of any kind currently exist? The answer is of course yes, which means you have misinterpreted "absence of evidence" by your own argumentative tactic.

>give him evidence

I dont think you understand what absence of evidence means

>>9440962
>That doesn't follow.
Correct, that's why I said it is a non-sequitur.

>>9440962
>Does evidence of any kind currently exist? The answer is of course yes
Why?

>>9440958
>>9440965
See he's now devolved into obtuse comments, like asking to explain a comment that is explained directly after what he quoted, and deliberately misinterpreting your posts.

>>9440962
>This doesn't answer the question.
Due to the absence of evidence the answer to the question can not be discerned. I would prefer not committing a non-sequitur.

>>9440970
>See he's now devolved into obtuse comments, like asking to explain a comment that is explained directly after what he quoted, and deliberately misinterpreting your posts.
I'm not misinterpreting anything, I'm just pointing out how you've misinterpreted "absence of evidence", by conflating the two probabilities P(H) and P(H|~E).

>>9440968
Because evidence is being found constantly. For example, someone right now is receiving the results of a medical test.

>>9440973
>For example, someone right now is receiving the results of a medical test.
There's an absence of evidence regarding this claim.

>>9440971
It's a very simple question, does evidence exist? You already know the answer, and you are avoiding answering because you know it destroys your argument. You lost, again.

>>9440973
>Because evidence is being found constantly. For example, someone right now is receiving the results of a medical test.
This is a non-sequitur.

>>9440977
>It's a very simple question, does evidence exist?
What part of "Due to the absence of evidence the answer to the question can not be discerned" confuses you? I already said I prefer not committing a non-sequitur.

>>9440973
>someone right now is receiving the results of a medical test.
Actually, P(someone right now is receiving the results of a medical test)=0, so this is not evidence.

>>9440914
>Which makes E not evidence, because P(E) = 0
Why?

>>9435039
sad day...

>>9435039
But the manager doesn't have an absence of evidence.

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/71783/evidence-of-absence-absence-of-evidence/

>>9434931
>>can't into bayes' theorem
But Bayes' theorem only allows you to update your probability based on evidence, not an absence of evidence.

>>9440510

I have evidence that ur a faget.

>>9441466
>establishing

"Just because there is no evidence of X doesn't mean X doesn't exist, therefore X exists."

>>9442680
>"Just because there is no evidence of X doesn't mean X doesn't exist, therefore X exists."
Huh?

>>9441466
> faget
Why the homophobia?

>>9440632
kys

>>9444241
>kys
Are you okay?