/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9825065
No evidence that OP is straight
Therefore OP is a faggot

>>9825068
>religous people are the majority
whatever you say chris

>>9825065
It's not true.
If absence was quantifiable then obviously absence of evidence would be evidence in and of itself.

Axiom 1 should say a implies b. Theres no probability involved.

Axiom 3 should say a implies b or not b which is vacuous as the implication is never false, which is kind of the point.

>>9825076
>unless stated otherwise, everyone has my opinion on everything
>and if it is different, then they're just being contrarian

>>9825207
Even if we assumed the proof to be logically consistent, all this guy proves is that given "absence of evidence", the probability of absence is arbitrarily higher. Which still doesn't eliminate the chance that absence of evidence might NOT imply absence - and this chance depends solely on the magnitude of the difference established in Definition 1, which more often than not, is unknown. So this "proof" seems pretty damn trivial if you ask me.

>>9825724
Yea, I was going to comment about the use of probability but the statement is sufficiently dumb.

>>9825239
Sounds like a typical fedora tipping theist to me.

>>9825207
>Axiom 1 should say a implies b. Theres no probability involved.
That would mean A is proof of B. We are taking about evidence, not proof.

>Axiom 3 should say a implies b or not b
Think about how the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is applied. A famous example is Donald Rumsfeld saying that the absence of evidence for WMDs in Iraq is not evidence of absence of WMDs in Iraq. The definition of absence in the OP matches this.

>>9825825
>That would mean A is proof of B. We are taking about evidence, not proof.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/evidence
>that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

>>9825825
>Donald Rumsfeld
>listening to neocons for popsci interpretations

>>9825831
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence
>Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion.

>>9825835
I am simply giving you an example of how the phrase is applied, retard. Another would be the failure to find alien signals is not evidence of absence of aliens.

>>9825836
>broadly construed

>>9825839
Not brutally construed in this context.
There is no such thing as an empirical proof.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

>>9825843
Who said anything about empiricism?

>>9825849
Everyone who has ever uttered the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

>>9825857
>Everyone who has ever uttered the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
What did Rumsfeld say about empiricism?

>I say that because I have had experiences where I have gone back and done a great deal of work and analysis on intelligence information and looked at important countries, target countries, looked at important subject matters with respect to those target countries and asked, probed deeper and deeper and kept probing until I found out what it is we knew, and when we learned it, and when it actually had existed. And I found that, not to my surprise, but I think anytime you look at it that way what you find is that there are very important pieces of intelligence information that countries, that spend a lot of money, and a lot of time with a lot of wonderful people trying to learn more about what's going in the world, did not know some significant event for two years after it happened, for four years after it happened, for six years after it happened, in some cases 11 and 12 and 13 years after it happened.

>Now what is the message there? The message is that there are no "knowns." There are thing we know that we know. There are known unknowns [...]

>There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something exists does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist. And yet almost always, when we make our threat assessments, when we look at the world, we end up basing it on the first two pieces of that puzzle, rather than all three.

>>9825843
>There is no such thing as an empirical proof.
There's no proof of this.

>>9825065
absence of evidence is not the negation of a statement.
also,
>probability
>evidence

>>9825835
Some crimes are covered-up enough, or easy enough to get away with, that a small amount of evidence already points to a big problem. Or do you take pic related at face value?

>>9825825
My point is that absence of evidence means a claim may or may not be true. Theres insufficient information about a and or b yo make a meaningful conclusion

>>9825965
You're making the same fallacy. The absence of a large amount of evidence that could exist is evidence of absence. The question then is whether that evidence of absence is stronger than the small amount of evidence of presence (taking into account prior probabilies of course).

>>9825965
cringe

>>9825884
This is proven by the possibility of observational failure inherent in all a posteriori knowledge.

>>9825914
>absence of evidence is not the negation of a statement.
Either an event occurs or doesn't occur. If it doesn't occur then its negation occurred by definition. If evidence is absent then the event A did not occur and it's negation did occur. If absence is true then B did not occur and its negation did occur.

All evidence in the real world where this phrase is applied is probabilistic.

>>9826496
>My point is that absence of evidence means a claim may or may not be true.
A 99.99% probability of being true means that the claim may or may not be true. Evidence is useful and all evidence should be taken into account when determining the probability of truth. All empirical investigations are probabilistic.

>>9826579
Absence of detection of an event does not preclude the occurrence of the event.

>>9825065
Imagine making this garbage and being so proud you put your fucking name and copyright on it lmao.

>>9826598
>Absence of detection of an event does not preclude the occurrence of the event.
The event would have to include being detected, otherwise it's not evidence. An event which occurs without our knowledge does not change our probability of anything.

>>9825068
>>9825076
>>9825207
>>9825239
>>9825724
>>9825794
>>9825808
>>9825825
>>9825831
>>9825835
>>9825836
>>9825837
>>9825839
>>9825843
>>9825849
>>9825857
>>9825858
>>9825871
>>9825884
>>9825914
>>9825965
>>9826496
>>9826555
>>9826562
>>9826579
>>9826586
>>9826598
>>9826605
>>9826608
How can so many people at once fall so fucking hard for such a shitty, blatant, obvious, low-effort bait? Fucking newfags.

>>9826605
Really though. This is a sophomore-level proof.

>>9826562
>This is proven by the possibility of observational failure inherent in all a posteriori knowledge.
What possibility?

>>9826608
>The event would have to include being detected, otherwise it's not evidence. An event which occurs without our knowledge does not change our probability of anything.
There is no notion of "being detected" or "occurs without our knowledge" when calculating probabilities. The conditional probability can be calculated irregardless of this outside knowledge.

>>9826845
>What possibility?
The possibility of error in observation of empirical evidence.

>>9826857
>The possibility of error in observation of empirical evidence.
Is there a possibility of error in the observation of empirical evidence that led you to believe there's no such thing as an empirical proof?

>>9826848
>There is no notion of "being detected" or "occurs without our knowledge" when calculating probabilities
Of course there is. Probability is a measure of the state of knowledge of the person calculating it. Events occuring or not occurring that you have no knowledge of do not change your state of knowledge. In other words, an event which you have no knowledge of occurring cannot be said to be given as occurring, except in a hypothetical statement.

>>9826877
>Probability is a measure of the state of knowledge of the person calculating it.
Probabilities belong to the Platonic realm, not the human realm.

>Events occuring or not occurring that you have no knowledge of do not change your state of knowledge.
P(A|B) is calculated the same way irregardless of whether you have also have some sub-Platonic knowledge or not.

>>9826858
>Is there a possibility of error in the observation of empirical evidence that led you to believe there's no such thing as an empirical proof?
This is not based on empirical observation. It's a priori.

>>9826879
>Platonic realm
No such thing. We are in the human and our probability calculations are in the same realm.

>P(A|B) is calculated the same way irregardless of whether you have also have some sub-Platonic knowledge or not.
It is either calculated based on evidence in your hand or in the hypothetical of having evidence in your hand. The former requires detection and the latter does not describe actual probability, only hypothetical probability.

>>9826881
>This is not based on empirical observation. It's a priori.
Is there a possibility of error in the observation of empirical evidence that led you to believe it's a priori?

>>9826888
See >>9826881

>>9826886
>It is either calculated based on evidence in your hand or in the hypothetical of having evidence in your hand.
A and B exist in the Platonic realm, not in your hand.

>>9826894
>Platonic realm
No such thing

>>9826892
Either there is possibility of error, and so there could be such thing as an empirical proof, or there is proof of no possibility of error, and so you have an empirical proof.

>>9826902
>Either there is possibility of error, and so there could be such thing as an empirical proof
Doesn't follow.

>or there is proof of no possibility of error, and so you have an empirical proof.
There are empirical errors so this proof cannot exist. And any proof that does exist is a priori.

>>9826896
The Platonic realm is where mathematical objects exist. One can never truly know the probabilities for the kinds of 6-sided dice you can hold in your hand, but they can be approximated by using Platonic dice.

>>9826911
See >>9826896

>>9826913
What do you suggest to use to calculate the probabilities of 6-sided dice landing on certain numbers if not Platonic approximations?

>>9826919
A hypothetical probability space.

>>9826909
>Doesn't follow.
Then it doesn't follow that there's no such thing as an empirical proof given the possibility of error. Pick your poison.

>>9826921
>A hypothetical probability space.
That's a Platonic object.

>>9826922
That's the opposite of what you said, not an equivalent.

>>9826921
>A hypothetical probability space.
What's the difference between a probability space and a hypothetical probability space?

>>9826926
>Platonic object
No such thing. Try using a prior probability distribution.

>>9826934
>Try using a prior probability distribution.
Yes, that's another Platonic object. You seem to be getting the hang of things

>>9826938
See >>9826934

>>9826932
Depends on what method is used to create it.

>>9826955
>Depends on what method is used to create it.
Can you elaborate?

>>9826958
A probability measure based on information determined by experiment is not hypothetical.

>>9826972
An experiment in the human realm or the Platonic realm? If you're given some probability space how do you tell if its hypothetical or not?

>>9826979
See >>9826913 and >>9826955

>platonic object

>>9825065
Well, is

"A is evidence of B"

the same as

"(The probability of B being true, given that A is true) is greater than (the probability of B being true, given that A is false)"
?

You tell me, smart guy

>>9827296
That just means A increases the probability of B, smart guy.

>>9825065
Almost
This shows that absence of evidence is evidence of the absence of evidence

>>9827541
That would be P(¬A|¬A) > P(¬A|A) which is trivially true but not the result of the proof.

>>9825065
>tfw "a" is "b of evidence"