/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10203312]

Is this valid and/or sound?

[Anonymous No.10203317]

>>10203312
Absence of discovered evidence != Absolute absence of evidence
However, for the scientific method, you usually have to discover something to make a conclusion.

[Anonymous No.10203323]

If I look out my window and don't see zebras, is that evidence against the existence of zebras?

[Anonymous No.10203338]

>>10203312
It's too concrete.
Neither is completely true in all cases. The problem is people who treat either like a law that everything abides by.

[Anonymous No.10203375]

>>10203312
It is not clear what "absence" means. It is also not clear why one statement negation is absence of evidence while the other isnt. Also, the proof only shows a relation between these ill defined probabilities. It does not prove the probabilities exist.

[Anonymous No.10203390]

>>10203323
If I look out my window and don't see zebras, is that evidence for the existence of zebras?

[Anonymous No.10203393]

>>10203390
It's possible to answer "no" to both of those questions.

[Anonymous No.10203397]

>>10203312
>Bayesian probability
no it's not valid nor sound

[Anonymous No.10203401]

>>10203397
>>Bayesian probability
Every reputable statistician rejects Bayes theorem.

[Anonymous No.10203403]

>>10203401
That's what I just said

[Anonymous No.10203452]

>>10203317
>Absence of discovered evidence != Absolute absence of evidence
This is irrelevant to the argument though, since both increase the probability of B, the absence of both increases the probability of B being absent.

[Anonymous No.10203453]

>>10203323
Yes.

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

[Anonymous No.10203456]

>>10203375
>It is not clear what "absence" means.
The negation of presence.

> It is also not clear why one statement negation is absence of evidence while the other isnt.
Based on the relationship between A and B in the first definition.

>Also, the proof only shows a relation between these ill defined probabilities. It does not prove the probabilities exist.
You need proof that for some A and B, P(B|A) > P(B|¬A)?

[Anonymous No.10203472]

>>10203312
Everything is 50/50. It either happens or it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.10203735]

>>10203456
a is not related to B, and theres no reason to think it would be based on the proof.

b is to B as a is to A since it's assumed in the proof that A and B are independent. This is an inconsistency.

P(B|A) says nothing about A or B. The proof doesnt demonstrate it either, except for the initial claim.

This proof is invalid.

[Anonymous No.10203766]

If a theory is true and many people are trying to prove it there should be a mountain of evidence, if there is no evidence then that is evidence that the theory is wrong, which is why I don't believe in conspiracies that don't have evidence (some do)
This logic only applies if many people are fanatical about the theory and constantly searching for evidence for it.

[Anonymous No.10204179]

>>10203312
Ewwww
Mom, the philosophy majors are raping math again!