Absence of evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-08-2015, 12:17 PM
RE: Absence of evidence
(22-08-2015 11:54 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 11:47 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Yes, you are the only one seeing a problem.

No evidence of a concept/claim, means no possibility or plausibility.

Otherwise, fairies are as equally likely to exist as an as of yet undiscovered fish in the deep sea. Which is bullshit. We know of other deep sea fish, so an unknown species of dee sea fish is plausible. Fairies have no evidence of plausibility, they are indistinguishable from fiction, because they are fiction.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1...y-science/

These things were once thought impossible. It is a mistake to believe that because something has not been proven to be possible, that it must be impossible. If you like having false beliefs and being wrong a lot, have at it.

It doesn't matter in the slightest what in the past was considered to be impossible. What matters is right now, for that's all you got.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
22-08-2015, 12:29 PM
RE: Absence of evidence
Wow.

According to TBD and Free, it is impossible to not know whether or not something is possible. According to their logic, if you don't know something is possible, then you automatically can assume that it is impossible.

If you think this, then you have zero understanding of logic and the scientific method.

Good day guys! Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 12:34 PM
RE: Absence of evidence
(22-08-2015 11:28 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 10:33 AM)Chas Wrote:  No - are you trying to misunderstand? Consider

It means every claim where there is an absence of evidence that should be there were the claim true has a high probability of being false.

I think "probability" is a poor and misleading word choice, but let's not get hung up on that.

Do you have a better word? Consider

Quote:What evidence should be there in the case of a deistic god?

No credible explanation for the existence of the universe other than that deity would suffice.

But the better ground to tread with that claim is why would one make it?
What does it explain? It just requires an explanation of that deity.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
22-08-2015, 12:48 PM
RE: Absence of evidence
(22-08-2015 12:29 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Wow.

According to TBD and Free, it is impossible to not know whether or not something is possible. According to their logic, if you don't know something is possible, then you automatically can assume that it is impossible.

If you think this, then you have zero understanding of logic and the scientific method.

Good day guys! Thumbsup

Another moronic straw man.

(kind of arrogant to tell a scientist he doesn't understand the scientific method, no?)

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 12:55 PM
RE: Absence of evidence
(22-08-2015 12:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 11:28 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  I think "probability" is a poor and misleading word choice, but let's not get hung up on that.

Do you have a better word? Consider

Yeah, just leave it out. It doesn't add anything to say it's improbable. Just say you don't think it's the case.

(22-08-2015 11:28 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  What evidence should be there in the case of a deistic god?

(22-08-2015 12:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  No credible explanation for the existence of the universe other than that deity would suffice.

So far, we don't really understand the origin of our universe do we?

(22-08-2015 12:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  But the better ground to tread with that claim is why would one make it?
What does it explain? It just requires an explanation of that deity.

We are in 100% agreement on this.Thumbsup

Chas, what do you think of Free's claimed axiom? The axiom of: "If we don't know that it's possible, then we know it's impossible.

Do you think this holds true? Or do you think it's possible to simply not know whether or not something is possible?

We'll take other universes as an example. If we aren't certain that other universes are possible, then should we automatically assume that they are impossible?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 01:51 PM
RE: Absence of evidence
(22-08-2015 12:29 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Wow.

According to TBD and Free, it is impossible to not know whether or not something is possible. According to their logic, if you don't know something is possible, then you automatically can assume that it is impossible.

If you think this, then you have zero understanding of logic and the scientific method.

Good day guys! Thumbsup

Do you always resort to misrepresenting your opponent's position on things when you get corrected in discussions and debates? It is not impossible to know whether something is possible or not, because all you need to do to qualify it as being possible is to either provide some evidence, or actually demonstrate it in some way.

You cannot claim that "anything is possible" without being expected to prove it some way. Not all things are possible, but some things can be demonstrated without any physical evidence.

For example ...

1 + 1 = 3 is not possible with whole numbers.

It is not possible to- when counting numbers- to ever count the last number, because there is no last number in the infinite count.

So why do we accept both above as being true when we have no physical evidence?

What do you think?

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
22-08-2015, 02:03 PM
RE: Absence of evidence
(22-08-2015 01:51 PM)Free Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 12:29 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Wow.

According to TBD and Free, it is impossible to not know whether or not something is possible. According to their logic, if you don't know something is possible, then you automatically can assume that it is impossible.

If you think this, then you have zero understanding of logic and the scientific method.

Good day guys! Thumbsup

Do you always resort to misrepresenting your opponent's position on things when you get corrected in discussions and debates?

Where have I misrepresented someone?

(22-08-2015 01:51 PM)Free Wrote:  It is not impossible to know whether something is possible or not, because all you need to do to qualify it as being possible is to either provide some evidence, or actually demonstrate it in some way.

But it is also possible to not know whether or not something is possible. I don't know that other universes are possible, but I also don't know that they are impossible. I just don't know.

(22-08-2015 01:51 PM)Free Wrote:  You cannot claim that "anything is possible" without being expected to prove it some way.

If I claimed that "anything is possible" then I apologize. That would've been an error on my part.

(22-08-2015 01:51 PM)Free Wrote:  Not all things are possible, but some things can be demonstrated without any physical evidence.

For example ...

1 + 1 = 3 is not possible with whole numbers.

It is not possible to- when counting numbers- to ever count the last number, because there is no last number in the infinite count.

So why do we accept both above as being true when we have no physical evidence?

What do you think?

They can be confirmed by mathematical laws that can be known a priori.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 02:18 PM
RE: Absence of evidence
(22-08-2015 02:03 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 01:51 PM)Free Wrote:  Do you always resort to misrepresenting your opponent's position on things when you get corrected in discussions and debates?

Where have I misrepresented someone?

(22-08-2015 01:51 PM)Free Wrote:  It is not impossible to know whether something is possible or not, because all you need to do to qualify it as being possible is to either provide some evidence, or actually demonstrate it in some way.

But it is also possible to not know whether or not something is possible. I don't know that other universes are possible, but I also don't know that they are impossible. I just don't know.

Dude, if you do not have the knowledge to determine whether or not something is possible, then that is no different than it being not possible.

The lack of knowledge on whether or not something is possible still means that it is not possible because no evidence has been provided to demonstrate the truth of it being possible.

It doesn't matter in the slightest that you don't know if it's possible or not, because it doesn't change the fact that until you do know, then it isn't possible.

The default is that it is not possible until/if the knowledge becomes available to prove otherwise.

If you don't know whether something is possible or not, then it's not possible until you do know. After all, how can it be possible without knowledge? It isn't.

Quote:
(22-08-2015 01:51 PM)Free Wrote:  Not all things are possible, but some things can be demonstrated without any physical evidence.

For example ...

1 + 1 = 3 is not possible with whole numbers.

It is not possible to- when counting numbers- to ever count the last number, because there is no last number in the infinite count.

So why do we accept both above as being true when we have no physical evidence?

What do you think?

They can be confirmed by mathematical laws that can be known a priori.

Yes, exactly. But we have no physical evidence of it, and still accept the truth of it.

We know things to be true because we can prove those things to be true. We know when something is possible because we have some evidence that it's possible. We know when things are factual because such things as mathematical laws make it known as factual.

And in the same way, we know when something is not possible because of a lack of all the above elements needed to support the existence of the possibility. If there is nothing in existence to support the possibility, then the possibility itself does not exist.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 02:29 PM
RE: Absence of evidence
"Where have I misrepresented someone?"

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

And Here



Those are just the times on this thread

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
22-08-2015, 02:32 PM
RE: Absence of evidence
(22-08-2015 02:29 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "Where have I misrepresented someone?"

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

And Here



Those are just the times on this thread

That doesn't show anything. What did I say that is not true?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: