[ 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: 50 KB, 742x609, absence of evidence.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11820855 No.11820855 [Reply] [Original]

What does /sci/ think about absence of evidence?

>> No.11820857

>>11820855
Most people can't comprehend the concept due to lack of experience of evidenceless phenomena.

>> No.11820884

>>11820855
I flip a coin and put it in a box if and only if it lands heads. I close the box and present it to you. Is the absence of evidence that there's a coin inside the box evidence of its absence?

>> No.11820909

>>11820884
>Is the absence of evidence that there's a coin inside the box evidence of its absence?
What does this mean?

>> No.11820910

>>11820855
Wow, a mistake in the first line. P(B|A) is not necessarily greater than P(B|¬A), if B is an event with a 1 probability, then they'll be equal.

>> No.11820921

There's an absence of evidence that OP isn't a faggot

>> No.11820934

>>11820855
Fuck off fedora

>> No.11820952

Let A be evidence of B. Mathematically,
[eqn]A \rightarrow B.[/eqn]

It very obviously does not follow that
[eqn]\neg A \rightarrow \neg B[/eqn]

Conditional probability doesn't capture the concept of evidence well, as it (in reality) isn't possible for an event to not happen and at the same time there be evidence that it did (strictly speaking).

>> No.11821395

>>11820910
the B is unconditionally true and A cannot be evidence for it by definition

>> No.11821401

>>11820952
>Conditional probability doesn't capture the concept of evidence well, as it (in reality) isn't possible for an event to not happen and at the same time there be evidence that it did (strictly speaking)
logical implication doesn't capture the concept of evidence well, as it (in reality) isn't possible for an event to not happen and at the same time there be evidence that it did (strictly speaking), you need a more general conditional probability framework

>> No.11821437

>>11821395
Then you need to define what you mean by evidence, because you can claim anything you want if you don't use any concrete definitions.

>> No.11821509

>>11820884
n-no sir.

>> No.11821513

>>11820855
yes. Also correlation equals causation, ad hominen is the highest form of argument, and there is no difference between "in theory" and "in practice"

>> No.11821515

>>11820857
Most people don't know the difference between "evidence" and "proof"

>> No.11821517

>>11821513
And the longer a claim goes without proof, the more likely it is that the claim is false.

>> No.11821519

>>11821517
There is no such thing as conclusive proof

>> No.11821520

>>11820952
Evidence is not proof, you can have evidence of something that isn't true. Evidence is simply an indicator that something happened, it by no means says that it definitely did happen

>> No.11821527

>>11821513
based

>> No.11821530

>>11821527
not even being sarcastic

>> No.11821533

>>11820884
>Is the absence of evidence that there's a coin inside the box evidence of its absence?
What specifically is missing that would increase the probability of a coin being in the box? If such a thing can exist then its absence certainly is evidence of absence. However don't make the mistake of only looking at one piece of evidence and ignoring all others.

>> No.11821540

>>11821437
>Then you need to define what you mean by evidence,
It's already been defined, that which increases the probability of something. If an event happens surely or almost surely then there is no event which can increase its probability. Looking for evidence would be pointless.

>> No.11821543

>>11821519
>There is no such thing as conclusive proof
Prove it.

>> No.11821548

>>11821517
You've just solved Riemann Hypothesis bro.

>> No.11821564

>>11821543
I just told you I can't.

>> No.11821607

>>11821564
Then there is such a thing as conclusive proof.

>> No.11821611

>>11821607
for you

>> No.11821616

>>11821611
You're a big guy

>> No.11821846

>>11820855
I think LessWrong has some good sequences

>> No.11822170

>>11820855
Define evidence.
For what purpose or in what context are you using the evidence?
Could a manipulator abuse your adherence to your heuristic by destroying or hiding evidence in order to lead you to the wrong conclusion?
Did helen keller conclude that light and sound probably didn't exist because she lacked the ability to detect them?
How does your heuristic account for inadequate detection equipment?
Certainly it should be modified to absence of evidence IMPLIES evidence of absence OR evidence of inadequate detection.

>> No.11822306

>>11822170
>Define evidence.
It's already defined. That which increases the probability of an event.

>For what purpose or in what context are you using the evidence?
Any.

>Could a manipulator abuse your adherence to your heuristic by destroying or hiding evidence in order to lead you to the wrong conclusion?
A manipulator could fabricate evidence, does this mean you should ignore evidence? No, the probability of a manipulator has to be taken into account when you update the probability.

>Did helen keller conclude that light and sound probably didn't exist because she lacked the ability to detect them?
She was told light and sound existed. You're confusing one piece of evidence for the balance of evidence.

>How does your heuristic account for inadequate detection equipment?
Same way you account for false positives.

>Certainly it should be modified to absence of evidence IMPLIES evidence of absence OR evidence of inadequate detection.
No.

>> No.11824361

It depends on the context. But in general, of course AOE != EOA

>> No.11824369

What is there to think of a tautology?

>> No.11824407

>>11820855
The existence of a positivist phenomenon either is or isn't. There is no probability of something being true. There's a reason we don't describe things like statistical power and confidence as "95% probability of..."

in b4 some faggot undergrad brings up quantum stochastic waveform bullshit

>> No.11824489

>>11822306
If I have a 60% chance of shattering a plate when I drop one, is dropping a plate evidence of it shattering? Obviously not, you are just abusing your definition to prove something that has nothing to do with evidence.

>> No.11824491

>>11820855
Statistics should be illegal

>> No.11824851

>>11824369
All logical deductions are tautologies.

>> No.11824852

>>11824361
So the failure to find WMDs in Iraq is not evidence of their absence?

>> No.11824854

>>11824407
>The existence of a positivist phenomenon either is or isn't. There is no probability of something being true.
False and doesn't follow.

>> No.11824881

>>11820855
Is the probability of B given A strictly greater than B given the negation of A? Or is the probability of B given A probably greater than the probability of B given the negation of A.

>> No.11824892

>>11824852
Obviously, unless you searched all possible elements of the Iraq set.

>> No.11824893

>>11821519
>>11821543
All proofs are conclusive, assuming they are allowed in whatever system defines them. There is however no conclusive way to verify the consistency of axioms and assumptions, or to decide whether they correspond to reality or evidence.

>> No.11824899

>>11824489
>If I have a 60% chance of shattering a plate when I drop one, is dropping a plate evidence of it shattering?
It depends on the probability of a plate shattering in general. If it's lower than 60% then it is indeed evidence. If it's much lower than 60%, like 13%, then it is strong evidence for the plate being shattered.

But don't be confused. Strong echoed doesn't necessarily mean you should accept what it supports. The prior probability of a hypothesis can be so low that even very strong evidence can fail to make it likely. But in this case it is clearly likely the plate shattered after being dropped.

>Obviously not
Why? Not only does the plate being dropped support the plate being shattered, If you were to bet on the plate shattering after being dropped then you would win most of your bets. This isn't even an unintuitive example.

>> No.11824904

>>11824892
That would be proof of no WMDs in Iraq. We are talking about evidence.

>> No.11825030

What is this bullshit? Definition 1 is wrong. A is evidence of B := P(B|A) > P(B). Claiming that A is evidence of B := P(B|A) > P(B|~A) is circular.

>> No.11825071

>>11824852
Of course it isn't. Other things like the average IQ and literacy rate of Iraq are.

>> No.11825074

>>11820934
Fuck off creationist

>> No.11825216

>>11825071
Does it change your level of belief that there are no WMDs in Iraq?

>> No.11825223

>>11825030
P(B|A) > P(B|~A) -> P(B|A) > P(B)

So I have no clue what you're trying to say.

>> No.11826134

>>11820884
Yes.
>Probability(coin in box | see coin) > Probability(coin in box | no see coin)
so
>Probability(coin not in box | see coin) < Probability(coin not in box | no see coin)
as the LHS and RHS of equation two are 1-(LHS or RHS) of equation 1

>> No.11826213

>>11820855
According to OP's retarded image, God exists because no one has evidence against her.

>> No.11826230

>>11820855
definitions 2 and 3 are not well defined

>> No.11826240
File: 127 KB, 404x550, her.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11826240

>>11826213
>God exists because no one has evidence against her
> no one has evidence against her
> her

>> No.11826250

>>11826213
No, the image is saying lack of evidence against god is evidence that god exists, which is mathematically correct.

>> No.11826262

>>11826213
>her
fuck off pajeet

>> No.11826415

>>11825223
Okay, now prove P(B|A) > P(B) -> P(B|A) > P(B|~A) and then we'll talk.

>> No.11826512
File: 111 KB, 721x528, Capture.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11826512

>>11820855
debunked years ago
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/71783/evidence-of-absence-absence-of-evidence

>> No.11826550

>>11826512
What if you take A to mean "[thing] is observed"

>> No.11826694

>>11826550
How would you define the probability spaces in which OP's "proof" is being construed?

>> No.11827105

>>11826415
That's trivial.

P(B) = P(B|A) P(A) + P(B|~A) P(~A)

P(B|A) > P(B)

P(B|A) > P(B|A) P(A) + P(B|~A) P(~A)

P(B|A) > P(B|~A) P(~A) / (1-P(A))

P(B|A) > P(B|~A)

>> No.11827109

>>11826230
Why not?

>> No.11827117

>>11826512
That's a bunch of nonsense

>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"
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.11827157

>>11826694
Any valid probability space will work since every valid probability space has dependent events and dependent events always meet the criteria of being evidence for each other.

P(A and B) > P(A) P(B)
P(A and B)/P(B) > P(A)
P(A|B) > P(A)

>> No.11827256

>>11820855

Is that you Bell? Still misunderstanding simple probability I see

>> No.11828771

Bump

>> No.11828828

>>11824489
If X then Y, then observing Y makes X more likely than when observing not-Y.

>> No.11828840

>>11820855
the rule in OPs image is true in case of some fairy tale-ish theoretical physics.
can't get enough of the quote below
>"I can’t believe what this once-venerable profession has become. Theoretical physicists used to explain what was observed. Now they try to explain why they can’t explain what was not observed."

>> No.11828914

>>11828840
It's true in all cases.

>> No.11829276

>>11820855
The argument is good, but the first definition is wrongly classified as a definition, when it should be a hypotheses, and it looks completely made up. So, only if that is true, then you could infere that the conclussion that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

>> No.11829288

>>11829276
I'm having second thoughts about the third implication,, perhaps the argument it's falacious.

>> No.11829321

>>11829288
It's correct.

P(B|A) > P(B)
P(~B|A) < P(~B)
P(A|~B) < P(A)
P(~A|~B) > P(~A)
P(~B|~A) > P(~B)

>> No.11829329

>>11829276
>The argument is good, but the first definition is wrongly classified as a definition, when it should be a hypotheses
Can you give an example of evidence which does not increase the probability of something? It seems to capture exactly what evidence means in a Bayesian sense.

>> No.11829995

>>11820855
Why do you need definition 3 when definition 2 has already re-named the complement of an event?

>> No.11830018

>>11820855
Literally meaningless symbol pushing, clearly someone without mathematical training. Might as well be doing something like
Definition 1: X is Y if 1 > 0
Definition 2: X = OP
Definition 3: Y = faggot

1 > 0
<=>
X is Y
<=>
OP is faggot

>> No.11830092

>>11830018
>meaningless symbol pushing
So failing to find something does not increase the probability it's absent?

>> No.11830102

>>11830092
>So failing to find something does not increase the probability it's absent?
Can you re-phrase this into something mathematical?

>> No.11830168

>>11820855
Abuse of notation. "Not A" isn't the same thing as "no evidence of A"

>> No.11830182

>>11829329
>Can you give an example of evidence which does not increase the probability of something?
If I ask you to pick a number, and tell you it's not 3, what probability has increased?

>> No.11830436

>>11830168
Huh? The image doesnt say that. It says if A is evidence of B then ~A is the absence of evidence of B.

>> No.11830454

>>11830102
If P(B|A) = 1 then Is P(B|~A) =< P(B)?

>> No.11830459

>>11830182
>If I ask you to pick a number, and tell you it's not 3, what probability has increased?
That it's not 3.

>> No.11831041

>>11830459
>That it's not 3.
Why has that probability increased?

>> No.11831054

>>11820855
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w5JqQLqqTc

>> No.11831063

>>11830454
>If P(B|A) = 1 then Is P(B|~A) =< P(B)?
What have you tried?

>> No.11831727

>>11831063
Using Bayes theorem it's trivial to prove this. I already know it's true, I'm asking to you why you think it's "meaningless."

>> No.11831731

>>11831041
Because the number not being 3 and you telling me it's not 3 are dependent events in the probability space constructed for this problem.

>> No.11831746

What the theory of probability has to do with evidence(in the empirical sense)? I mean, if i can't prove something is correct at a given moment doesn't mean it's false. Maybe i have misunderstood the content of your pic?

>> No.11831836

>>11831746
>What the theory of probability has to do with evidence(in the empirical sense)?
Everything.

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

>I mean, if i can't prove something is correct at a given moment doesn't mean it's false.
No one said it does. If you fail to prove something which you had a nonzero chance of proving, then this increases the probability it's false. That doesn't mean it is false or is even likely to be false.

>> No.11831860

>>11831727
>I already know it's true, I'm asking to you why you think it's "meaningless."
I already provided an equally meaningless analog to OP's "proof" here: >>11830018

>> No.11831863

>>11831731
>in the probability space constructed for this problem.
What probability space are you referring to?

>> No.11831922

>>11820855
>What does /sci/ think about absence of evidence?
it's incredibly misused by puseds. When I search my office and find no elephant, absence of evidence of a elephant is evidence of absence. when using every normal diffintion of "office" "search" and "elephant"
it's also related to the idea but not exactly the same as current scientific method model used in statical validly tests where you "can only ever prove something is false, you can never prove it is true" another phrase misused by people.

>> No.11831953
File: 28 KB, 640x456, 14692950-461D-431B-98F7-BA4645791DA2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11831953

>>11831922
...however the way science means it is something more like "if I search 20 offices and find no elephants that is not evidence no office has an elephant" in fact I could search as many offices as I want and prove nothing. because the next office someone could always have a elephant.
also see the famous "there are no white doves" under "history of logic "

>> No.11831990
File: 870 KB, 1089x1583, 6AE84094-17FB-4C15-ACF0-5E84022719D6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11831990

>>11820855
Are A and b finite?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/confirmation/
all ravens are black?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox

>> No.11832122

>>11820855
Another shit thread. Do you really have nothing else to do in your life than to think about that?

>> No.11832312

>>11831863
Whichever one was constructed to answer your question.

>> No.11832330

>>11831860
How is it equally meaningless? I don't see how the definition is true and I don't see how the argument is analogous.

>> No.11832346

>>11831953
Since there are a finite number of offices in the world then it is indeed evidence that there are no elephants in offices, just weak evidence. See the Raven paradox.

>> No.11832409

>>11831953
In search and rescue algorithms when you've searched an area, you don't say 'target is not in this area', you say 'there is now a reduced likelihood that target is in this area'.

>> No.11832512

>>11832312
>Whichever one was constructed to answer your question.
Which is?

>> No.11832520

>>11832330
>How is it equally meaningless?
It proposes two equally meaningless definitions analogous to definitions 2 and 3 in the OP, and has a conclusion that relies entirely on substituting words based on these meaningless definitions.

>> No.11832620

>>11832512
Whichever one was constructed to answer your question.

>> No.11832637

>>11832520
>It proposes two equally meaningless definitions analogous to definitions 2 and 3 in the OP
How?

>and has a conclusion that relies entirely on substituting words based on these meaningless definitions.
The argument in the OP is not based on substitutions of defined words, it's based on probability theory.

>> No.11832770

>>11832637
>How?
Definitions 2 and 3 in the OP are meaningless, as are definitions 2 and 3 in my post.

>The argument in the OP is not based on substitutions of defined words, it's based on probability theory.
How does P(b|a) > P(b|~a) imply absence of evidence is evidence of absence without substituting definitions 2 and 3 into definition 1?

>> No.11832785

>>11832770
>Definitions 2 and 3 in the OP are meaningless
They're not. Evidence of X increases the probability of X. What exactly don't you understand about this?

>How does P(b|a) > P(b|~a) imply absence of evidence is evidence of absence without substituting definitions 2 and 3 into definition 1?
The argument in the OP is not simply based on substitutions of defined words, it's based on probability theory.

>> No.11832857

>>11820855
"Imbecile"

>> No.11832870

>>11832785
>Evidence of X increases the probability of X. What exactly don't you understand about this?
What does your first line here have to do with definitions 2 or 3?

>The argument in the OP is not simply based on substitutions of defined words, it's based on probability theory.
How does the claim follow without substituting definitions 2 and 3 into definition 1? What use are those definitions otherwise?

>> No.11832913

>>11832620
>Whichever one was constructed to answer your question.
Without any defined space, there's no reason to assume the probability increases in an arbitrary probability space.

>> No.11832922

>>11832870
>What does your first line here have to do with definitions 2 or 3?
What does defining a variable have to do with defibrillator 2 or 3?

The absence of evidence of WMDs in Iraq is the negation of evidence of WMDs in Iraq as an event. The absence of WMDs in Iraq is the negation of WMDs in Iraq as an event. Neither of these are meaningless or defining a variable.

>How does the claim follow without substituting definitions 2 and 3 into definition 1?
Where did I say that?

>> No.11832952

>>11832922
>What does defining a variable have to do with defibrillator 2 or 3?
Not sure why you mention variables here. You said something about definition 1 in response to me asking about 2 and 3.

>Where did I say that?
I didn't suggest you said anything, I asked you a question.

>> No.11833096

>>11832913
Incorrect, the proof in the OP works for any probability space. It's not an assumption.

>> No.11833113

>>11832952
>Not sure why you mention variables here.
In your "analogy" you define the variables X and Y in definition 2 and 3.

>You said something about definition 1 in response to me asking about 2 and 3.
No, I said they're not meaningless.

>I didn't suggest you said anything, I asked you a question.
Your question is based on a premise I never made.

>> No.11833207

>>11833096
>Incorrect, the proof in the OP works for any probability space.
Which part of the proof in the OP shows why the probability it isn't 3 increased?

>> No.11833229

>>11833113
>In your "analogy" you define the variables X and Y in definition 2 and 3.
I wouldn't consider particular events in a probability space to be variables (they're more like constants), but yes, X and Y are analogous to the meaningless definitions 2 and 3 in the OP that defined a and b.

>No, I said they're not meaningless.
I stated that definitions 2 and 3 are meaningless and you replied with "Evidence of X increases the probability of X", which doesn't appear to be related to either definition (correct me if I'm wrong).

>Your question is based on a premise I never made.
No, it's just a question. Though if your position is that the claim follows independently of definitions 2 and 3, then what purpose do they serve in the proof? And how does the claim follow otherwise?

>> No.11833545

>>11833207
>Which part of the proof in the OP shows why the probability it isn't 3 increased?
Huh? If the probability space contains dependent events then the proof shows the absence of one is evidence of the absence of the other. If you're talking about a probability space without dependent events then I don't see how that shows the proof doesn't work. It's just irrelevant to the proof.

>> No.11833570

>>11833545
>If the probability space contains dependent events then the proof shows the absence of one is evidence of the absence of the other. If you're talking about a probability space without dependent events then I don't see how that shows the proof doesn't work.
What does this have to do with the probability of 'not 3'?

>> No.11833575

>>11833229
>I wouldn't consider particular events in a probability space to be variables
You didn't define them as events. You just said X and Y.

>X and Y are analogous to the meaningless definitions 2 and 3 in the OP that defined a and b.
Wrong, as I've already explained.

>I stated that definitions 2 and 3 are meaningless and you replied with "Evidence of X increases the probability of X"
No, I replied with "They're not." Nice try.

>No, it's just a question.
It's just an irrelevant question since I never said the claim follows without substituting definitions 2 and 3 into definition 1.

>Though if your position is that the claim follows independently of definitions 2 and 3, then what purpose do they serve in the proof?
Again, that's not my claim.

>> No.11833599

>>11833575
>You didn't define them as events. You just said X and Y.
That's correct, I didn't intend for them to be events. By events, I was referring to the a and b in OP.

>Wrong, as I've already explained.
Which part of my analogy fails? OP has two meaningless definitions, as do I. They both appear to need to be substituted in to fulfill the argument.

>No, I replied with "They're not." Nice try.
If the rest of your post was irrelevant to my statement then I'm not sure why you included it.

>It's just an irrelevant question since I never said the claim follows without substituting definitions 2 and 3 into definition 1.
The two meaningless definitions that I pointed to are the core fault of the proof, so I'm not sure how the question is irrelevant regardless of whatever claims you may have made.

>Again, that's not my claim.
What is your claim?

>> No.11833691

>>11833599
>By events, I was referring to the a and b in OP.
I never called them variables.

>Which part of my analogy fails?
I already told you, every part.

Evidence of X increases the probability of X.

The argument in the OP is not simply based on substitutions of defined words, it's based on probability theory.

Defining a variable has nothing to do with definitions 2 or 3.

The absence of evidence of WMDs in Iraq is the negation of evidence of WMDs in Iraq as an event. The absence of WMDs in Iraq is the negation of WMDs in Iraq as an event. Neither of these are meaningless or defining a variable.

>If the rest of your post was irrelevant to my statement then I'm not sure why you included it.
It's relevant to your statements in general. I'm perplexed why you are claiming that the definitions in the OP are meaningless.

>The two meaningless definitions that I pointed to are the core fault of the proof, so I'm not sure how the question is irrelevant regardless of whatever claims you may have made.
That doesn't explain why you are asking me to explain a claim I never made.

>What is your claim?
See the pic in OP.

>> No.11833695

>>11833570
Is the event 'not 3' independent from the event 'you tell me it's not 3?'

>> No.11833723

>>11833691
>I never called them variables.
What were you referring to as variables in >>11832922?

>I already told you, every part.
>Evidence of X increases the probability of X.
>The argument in the OP is not simply based on substitutions of defined words, it's based on probability theory.
>Defining a variable has nothing to do with definitions 2 or 3.
>The absence of evidence of WMDs in Iraq is the negation of evidence of WMDs in Iraq as an event. The absence of WMDs in Iraq is the negation of WMDs in Iraq as an event. Neither of these are meaningless or defining a variable.
None of this appears to show a functional distinction between the use of my pair of meaningless definitions and OP's.

>It's relevant to your statements in general.
So if it had nothing to do with the specific statement which you were replying to, then what meaning do either of the definitions have?

>See the pic in OP.
That's what I've disputed.

>I'm perplexed why you are claiming that the definitions in the OP are meaningless.
Because "Definition 2 absence of evidence a=~A" is not a definition in any mathematical sense (same with 3).

>> No.11833728

>>11833695
>Is the event 'not 3' independent from the event 'you tell me it's not 3?'
I'm having difficult formulating a probability space that models picking a number in which 'you tell me it's not 3' is an event, can you re-phrase this into something mathematical?

>> No.11833796

>>11833723
>What were you referring to as variables in >>11832922 (You) #?
X and Y.

>None of this appears to show a functional distinction between the use of my pair of meaningless definitions and OP's.
This doesn't respond to anything you quoted. I showed they are not meaningless and how the argument differs. Either respond or concede that your analogy fails.

>So if it had nothing to do with the specific statement which you were replying to, then what meaning do either of the definitions have?
I already told you.

>That's what I've disputed.
You've certainly disputed it, but you've failed to defend your argument. I already explained the meaning of each definition yet you continue to claim they're meaningless.

>Because "Definition 2 absence of evidence a=~A" is not a definition in any mathematical sense (same with 3).
Right, it's a semantic definition.

>> No.11833803

>>11833728
>I'm having difficult formulating a probability space that models picking a number in which 'you tell me it's not 3' is an event
Then why did you ask me about the probability of it?

>> No.11833807

>>11833803
>Then why did you ask me about the probability of it?
I didn't, I asked for the probability of not 3.

>> No.11833815

>>11833807
Then it should be easy for you to add the event 'you tell me it's not 3' to the probability space including 'not 3.'

>> No.11833832

>>11833796
>X and Y.
Ok, well them being variables or not isn't relevant to my analog, so that's fine.

>This doesn't respond to anything you quoted.
It applies to every line I quoted above it.

>I showed they are not meaningless and how the argument differs. Either respond or concede that your analogy fails.
Your lines 1, 2 and 5 that I quoted didn't refer to definitions 2 and 3. Your lines 3 and 4 have some relevance to definitions 2 and 3 but don't supply any meaning to them.

>I already told you.
>You've certainly disputed it, but you've failed to defend your argument. I already explained the meaning of each definition yet you continue to claim they're meaningless.
I missed where you explained the meaning then, can you refer me to the post where you did so?

>Right, it's a semantic definition.
That's why the OP's conclusion relies entirely on substituting words based on these meaningless definitions, they have no mathematical meaning to use anywhere else in the proof.

>> No.11833845

>>11833815
>Then it should be easy for you to add the event 'you tell me it's not 3' to the probability space including 'not 3.'
That's the part I already stated I'm having difficulty with. What samples does "I tell you it's not 3" consist of, and what is the probability of "I tell you it's not 3"?

>> No.11833855

>>11833832
>Ok, well them being variables or not isn't relevant to my analog, so that's fine.
It is, since defining variables is not analogous to definitikns 2 and 3.

>It applies to every line I quoted above it.
I'm sure you think it applies to every line, but as I said, it doesn't respond to any of them. Otherwise you would have to accept me ignoring everything you've said and applying "You're wrong" to everything you've said.

>Your lines 1, 2 and 5 that I quoted didn't refer to definitions 2 and 3.
Line 5 clearly refers to those definitions. Read it again.

>I missed where you explained the meaning then, can you refer me to the post where you did so?
See >>11832922

>That's why the OP's conclusion relies entirely on substituting words based on these meaningless definitions
How do two of the definitions being semantic show the entire argument relies entirely on substitutions? That doesn't follow. You're ignoring the first definition and the parts of the argument that come before any substitution with the definitions. Why are you intent on misrepresenting the argument?

>> No.11833879

>>11833855
>It is, since defining variables is not analogous to definitikns 2 and 3.
I already clarified that X and Y weren't variables.

>I'm sure you think it applies to every line, but as I said, it doesn't respond to any of them. Otherwise you would have to accept me ignoring everything you've said and applying "You're wrong" to everything you've said.
That is essentially what you've already done. I accept that if you don't have anything substantial to rebut with.

>Line 5 clearly refers to those definitions.
What meaning does "The absence of evidence of WMDs in Iraq is the negation of evidence of WMDs in Iraq as an event. The absence of WMDs in Iraq is the negation of WMDs in Iraq as an event. Neither of these are meaningless or defining a variable." give to definitions 2 or 3?

>How do two of the definitions being semantic show the entire argument relies entirely on substitutions? That doesn't follow.
Maybe we have different understandings of 'entirely', but my claim is that without definitions 2 and 3 (which are only used semantically, not in any of the logical implications), the conclusion OP attempted to make does not follow.

>You're ignoring the first definition and the parts of the argument that come before any substitution with the definitions. Why are you intent on misrepresenting the argument?
The issues I pointed out don't pertain to the first definition or the parts of the argument prior to the substitution of definitions 2 and 3. I don't think I've misrepresented anything but let me know if I did.

>> No.11833881

>>11833845
>What samples does "I tell you it's not 3" consist of
Simply take your sample space, repeat it, and add "I tell you it's not 3" to one set of outcomes and "I don't tell you it's not 3" to the other set of outcomes.

>and what is the probability of "I tell you it's not 3"?
Presumably it would be less than P('I tell you it's not 3' and 'not 3') / P('not 3'), unless you're a liar.

>> No.11833893

>>11833881
>Simply take your sample space, repeat it, and add "I tell you it's not 3" to one set of outcomes and "I don't tell you it's not 3" to the other set of outcomes.
I'm still having trouble following. You refer to sets of outcomes, but those are elements of the event space, not the sample space.

Let's say it's a roll of a standard die with the usual probability space P and sample space S = {1,2,3,4,5,6}. How is your new sample space defined?

>Presumably it would be less than P('I tell you it's not 3' and 'not 3') / P('not 3'), unless you're a liar.
It's not clear that this defines a probability space.

>> No.11833909

>>11833879
>I already clarified that X and Y weren't variables.
Where?

>That is essentially what you've already done. I accept that if you don't have anything substantial to rebut with.
No, that is what you have done while failing to respond substantively to the following.

Evidence of X increases the probability of X.

The argument in the OP is not simply based on substitutions of defined words, it's based on probability theory.

Defining a variable has nothing to do with definitions 2 or 3.

The absence of evidence of WMDs in Iraq is the negation of evidence of WMDs in Iraq as an event. The absence of WMDs in Iraq is the negation of WMDs in Iraq as an event. Neither of these are meaningless or defining a variable.

>What meaning does "The absence of evidence of WMDs in Iraq is the negation of evidence of WMDs in Iraq as an event. The absence of WMDs in Iraq is the negation of WMDs in Iraq as an event. Neither of these are meaningless or defining a variable." give to definitions 2 or 3?
It explains what definitions 2 and 3 mean with an example. Explain what you don't understand.

>Maybe we have different understandings of 'entirely', but my claim is that without definitions 2 and 3 (which are only used semantically, not in any of the logical implications), the conclusion OP attempted to make does not follow.
If a stool has three legs it does not rest entirely on one leg, even if removing a leg would make the stool fall. It rests entirely on three legs. If your point was that the argument relies on these definitions you should have just said that. But that point is an irrelevancy. You are attempting to reduce the argument solely to those definitions in order to defend your claim it's meaningless. But that's simply a misrepresentation of the argument, like saying a stool has only one leg.

>> No.11833911

>>11833879
>The issues I pointed out don't pertain to the first definition or the parts of the argument prior to the substitution of definitions 2 and 3.
Then don't claim the argument rests entirely on them.

>>11833893
>I'm still having trouble following. You refer to sets of outcomes, but those are elements of the event space, not the sample space.
Incorrect,

>> No.11833927

>>11833909
>Where?
Here >>11833599

>It explains what definitions 2 and 3 mean with an example. Explain what you don't understand.
Definitions 2 and 3 "mean" ~A and ~B, which are both already well-defined mathematical objects independent of the two meaningless definitions in OP.

>If a stool has three legs it does not rest entirely on one leg, even if removing a leg would make the stool fall.
Under this notion of entirely, my claim is not that the OPs "proof" rests entirely on the two meaningless definitions, but that it fails without them. A ten line proof is still incorrect even if only one implication is false, it's not 'misrepresenting the argument' if I don't point out problems with the other implications.

>> No.11833929

>>11833893
>You refer to sets of outcomes, but those are elements of the event space, not the sample space.
Incorrect, the sample space is the set of outcomes. Double it and you have two identical sets of outcomes. Add the events to each member of both sets and you have a new sample space.

>How is your new sample space defined?
{1,2,3,4,5,6,1*,2*,3*,4*,5*,6*}
Where the star is "you telling me it's not a 3" and without a star is you not telling me.

>It's not clear that this defines a probability space.
You asked me what a certain probability is. I don't see the need to give a specific value or define an entire probability space.

>> No.11833949

>>11833929
>I don't see the need to give a specific value or define an entire probability space.
I'll refrain from discussing any mathematical objects that aren't well-defined.

>> No.11833957

>>11833927
>Here >>11833599 #
That doesn't even mention variables. Where did you clarify X and Y are not variables?

>Definitions 2 and 3 "mean" ~A and ~B
Huh? Those are just events. Definition 2 means that "absence of evidence" is the negation of A. Definition 3 means that "absence" is the negation of B. Now either this has meaning or the negations of A and B have no meaning. Which is it?

>Under this notion of entirely, my claim is not that the OPs "proof" rests entirely on the two meaningless definitions, but that it fails without them.
But that point is an irrelevancy. You are attempting to reduce the argument solely to those definitions in order to defend your claim it's meaningless. But that's simply a misrepresentation of the argument, like saying a stool has only one leg.

>> No.11833987

>>11833957
>That doesn't even mention variables. Where did you clarify X and Y are not variables?
My mistake, I meant to refer to >>11833832 where I clarified that them being variables or not isn't relevant to my analog.

>Definition 2 means that "absence of evidence" is the negation of A. Definition 3 means that "absence" is the negation of B. Now either this has meaning or the negations of A and B have no meaning. Which is it?
~A and ~B have mathematical meaning. Definitions 2 and 3 have no mathematical meaning which is why they're only used to substitute words.

>But that point is an irrelevancy. You are attempting to reduce the argument solely to those definitions in order to defend your claim it's meaningless. But that's simply a misrepresentation of the argument, like saying a stool has only one leg.
Regardless of any reductions, the errors I pointed out only pertain to those two definitions. It's not clear that the argument follows without these definitions, and since neither of the definitions aremathematical, there's nowhere else in the argument that the definitions can be used.

>> No.11834011

>>11833949
But you already did.

>> No.11834015

>>11834011
>But you already did.
"I'll" does not refer to the past.

>> No.11834065

>>11820884
Yes.

>> No.11834105

>>11829329
There could be absence of evidence because the operation or the instrument to test the claim could not be achievable in the present or with the current means. For example: microorganisms. Before the invention of a sophisticated device, like a microscope, to test the claims regarding the existance of microorganisms, it was impossible to obtain evidence. Ignore the fact that it is direct evidence, as it renders the claim not an hypetheses, but an observation. It was just to demonstrate that evidence may be lacking because despite the fact that the statement is true.

>> No.11834134

>>11821519
You can't, because you would infere something that is in direct opposition of the premises. if I do conclude with a valid argument that all proof is inconclusive, then it renders your own conclusion inconclusive (if you were to understand proof and demonstration as the same), putting you in a loop.
But, if clarify that proving something is done trough observation, while demonstrating something is done trough arguments, you abandon the loop.
Also, no, there's no conclusive proof, because there is no valid argument that let's you conclude that in a non-fallacious way. There's a point where a general claim has so much evidence supporting it that it becomes good enough for us to consider as a general truth.

>> No.11834165

>>11833987
>My mistake, I meant to refer to >>11833832 # where I clarified that them being variables or not isn't relevant to my analog.
How does that clarify that they're not variables?

>Definitions 2 and 3 have no mathematical meaning which is why they're only used to substitute words.
Mathematical meaning is not the same as meaning.

>Regardless of any reductions, the errors I pointed out only pertain to those two definitions.

>Regardless of any reductions, the errors I pointed out only pertain to those two definitions.
There is no error.

>>11834015
I didn't say it did.

>> No.11834217

>>11834105
>There could be absence of evidence because the operation or the instrument to test the claim could not be achievable in the present or with the current means.
If it had a nonzero chance of being achievable then it is evidence of of absence.

>Before the invention of a sophisticated device, like a microscope, to test the claims regarding the existance of microorganisms, it was impossible to obtain evidence.
"Evidence" which is impossible to obtain is not evidence. The well known uses of this phrase refer to searches which failed to find evidence, not "evidence" which was impossible to find.

>> No.11834421

prove you exist

>> No.11835263

>>11834421
I think therefore I am.

>> No.11835404

>>11834217
Of course that there's evidence impossible to obtain in the now. That's why scientist develop new intruments and experiments in the hopes that the ideas get tested. You are being wrongly absolutist regarding this topic.
Think about Higgs Boson, it was postulated in 1964 but the evidence first came to be in 2012 at a multimillion facility that was impossible to manufacture in the past.
I'm not saying that the absence of evidence equals to being unfit for testing. All scientific ideas should be opened to be tested in order to be classified as such, but the means by wich an idea is tested may not yet be formulated or available at the time of the proposal, wich, is quite common throughout history.
Nevertheless, if your point was that, being that the means by wich an idea can be tested exist and trough those means there is no supporting evidence that renders the statement true, then, yes, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

>> No.11835867

>>11820855
What do you think of non-black non-ravens?

>> No.11836148

>>11835867
They are evidence that all ravens are black.

>> No.11836404

On this topic the phrase that stuck with me when I first started thinking about it: "absence of evidence is evidence of absence IF there is supposed to be evidence (for a particular thing) and there isn't"

>> No.11836647

>>11820952
>Let A be evidence of B.

Let ME sleep with your SISTER.

>> No.11836839

>>11835404
>Of course that there's evidence impossible to obtain in the now.
That would only be evidence in the sense that we could have obtained the level of technological advancement required but have not. The failure to obtain the evidence even though there was a chance we could have is weak evidence of absence.

>That's why scientist develop new intruments and experiments in the hopes that the ideas get tested.
That doesn't support the idea that something which is impossible is evidence.

>> No.11836850

>>11836404
if there could be evidence, not if there should be. More formally, if evidence is not almost impossible.

>> No.11837020

>>11820884
to some degree because you would flip a coin, then close and present a box; 50% chance of heads or tails/going into the box.
some% chance the coin went in but is transferred/destroyed by an unseen method before being observed

>> No.11837499

>>11820952
OP BTFO

>> No.11837657

>>11837499
>evidence is the same thing as proof
Nah.

>> No.11837949

>>11824893
Wrong. I take the axiom of the excluded middle as my only axiom. Since it is an axiom, it is true, and by this axiom, it cannot be false. Without any other axioms to contradict it, my system is consistent.

>> No.11837957

>>11837949
In addition to this axiom, I take the axioms of double negation and modus ponens. My system is still consistent.

>> No.11838977

Questionable definition of "absence of evidence" in definition 2. Why should absence be defined only by the negation of a single event A? Shouldn't absence of evidence mean that there does not exist ANY event A matching the condition of definition 1?

>> No.11838992

>>11838977
For example if B is the event "I fucked your mom" and A is the event "Your mom has my cum in her cunt", then the absence of A is not the same as the absence of any evidence, since there might still be evidence C defined as the event "her mouth is full of my cum".