Absence of evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-08-2015, 06:53 AM
RE: Absence of evidence
(22-08-2015 06:52 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 06:47 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  No, it really doesn't.

If your reasoning wasn't flawed, it would work all the time...Drinking Beverage

Your response is nonsensical

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, 06:55 AM
RE: Absence of evidence
(22-08-2015 06:46 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 06:31 AM)Chas Wrote:  I'm not sure he knows what goalposts are. Drinking Beverage

The alien spacecraft example points out the obvious flaw in your reasoning.

No, it does not. The flaw is you not understanding the difference between undetectable and not detected.
You really do not understand what Sagan's point was.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
22-08-2015, 06:56 AM
RE: Absence of evidence
(22-08-2015 06:55 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 06:46 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  The alien spacecraft example points out the obvious flaw in your reasoning.

No, it does not. The flaw is you not understanding the difference between undetectable and not detected.
You really do not understand what Sagan's point was.

And you are missing the difference between plausible vs. not plausible/implausible, Matt

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, 06:56 AM
RE: Absence of evidence
(22-08-2015 06:52 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 06:47 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  No, it really doesn't.

If your reasoning wasn't flawed, it would work all the time...Drinking Beverage

They are two different arguments. Stop conflating them.

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, 07:13 AM
RE: Absence of evidence
(22-08-2015 06:45 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  That's all fine and dandy, but you won't convince any theists with this argument. They don't define god as non-existent.

I am not trying to convert any theist either with that argument. I am presenting my understanding of the logical implication of existence and of absence of evidence vs evidence of abscence. If you want to debate a theist you must ask him how he define his god (and see if that god is indeed defined as existing or not). If you want to convince him that he is wrong, you need to develop a relationship with him.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes epronovost's post
22-08-2015, 07:17 AM
RE: Absence of evidence
(22-08-2015 06:56 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 06:52 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  If your reasoning wasn't flawed, it would work all the time...Drinking Beverage

They are two different arguments. Stop conflating them.

The reasoning is the same. I don't think there's anything I can do to convince you guys, it's like trying to reason with the religious.

You guys have faith that god doesn't exist, but you can't see it.

If you were logically consistent, then here would be your conclusions.

1. I don't have proof that god exists, therefore, this is proof that god does not exist.

2. I don't have proof that alien spacecraft exist, therefore, this is proof that alien spacecraft don't exist.

You guys still fail to see the difference between absence of evidence and negative (falsifying) evidence. All I can say is good luck with that. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 07:22 AM
Absence of evidence
(22-08-2015 07:17 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 06:56 AM)Chas Wrote:  They are two different arguments. Stop conflating them.

The reasoning is the same. I don't think there's anything I can do to convince you guys, it's like trying to reason with the religious.

You guys have faith that god doesn't exist, but you can't see it.

If you were logically consistent, then here would be your conclusions.

1. I don't have proof that god exists, therefore, this is proof that god does not exist.

2. I don't have proof that alien spacecraft exist, therefore, this is proof that alien spacecraft don't exist.

You guys still fail to see the difference between absence of evidence and negative (falsifying) evidence. All I can say is good luck with that. Thumbsup

Facepalm

Shifting the burden of proof for the theist.

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, 07:29 AM
RE: Absence of evidence
(22-08-2015 07:17 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 06:56 AM)Chas Wrote:  They are two different arguments. Stop conflating them.

The reasoning is the same. I don't think there's anything I can do to convince you guys, it's like trying to reason with the religious.

You guys have faith that god doesn't exist, but you can't see it.

If you were logically consistent, then here would be your conclusions.

1. I don't have proof that god exists, therefore, this is proof that god does not exist.

2. I don't have proof that alien spacecraft exist, therefore, this is proof that alien spacecraft don't exist.

You guys still fail to see the difference between absence of evidence and negative (falsifying) evidence. All I can say is good luck with that. Thumbsup

" I don't have proof that alien spacecraft exist, therefore, this is proof that alien spacecraft don't exist."


That IS the conclusion reached. The difference is that there exists a species in the universe that has developed spacecraft. So it is plausible that life exists elsewhere in the universe (because it exists on Earth), it is plausible that intelligent life exists (because it exists on Earth) that has developed aircraft/spacecraft (because humans have developed them on Earth). It being plausible (and these are all detectable things) doesn't mean they do exist, only that there exists logical reasons and evidence to suggest they might exist.

This is the very same reason that it is hypothesized that other universes exist, because at least one exists.

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, 07:39 AM
RE: Absence of evidence
(22-08-2015 07:29 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 07:17 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  The reasoning is the same. I don't think there's anything I can do to convince you guys, it's like trying to reason with the religious.

You guys have faith that god doesn't exist, but you can't see it.

If you were logically consistent, then here would be your conclusions.

1. I don't have proof that god exists, therefore, this is proof that god does not exist.

2. I don't have proof that alien spacecraft exist, therefore, this is proof that alien spacecraft don't exist.

You guys still fail to see the difference between absence of evidence and negative (falsifying) evidence. All I can say is good luck with that. Thumbsup

" I don't have proof that alien spacecraft exist, therefore, this is proof that alien spacecraft don't exist."


That IS the conclusion reached. The difference is that there exists a species in the universe that has developed spacecraft. So it is plausible that life exists elsewhere in the universe (because it exists on Earth), it is plausible that intelligent life exists (because it exists on Earth) that has developed aircraft/spacecraft (because humans have developed them on Earth). It being plausible (and these are all detectable things) doesn't mean they do exist, only that there exists logical reasons and evidence to suggest they might exist.

This is the very same reason that it is hypothesized that other universes exist, because at least one exists.

Ok, so tell me how this sounds.

I have proof that alien spacecraft do not exist, but alien spacecraft might exist.

If you have proof that aliens don't exist, then you must know more than anyone else, and you must know a great deal more about the universe than, say Stephen Hawking for example.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 07:42 AM
Absence of evidence
(22-08-2015 07:39 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 07:29 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  " I don't have proof that alien spacecraft exist, therefore, this is proof that alien spacecraft don't exist."


That IS the conclusion reached. The difference is that there exists a species in the universe that has developed spacecraft. So it is plausible that life exists elsewhere in the universe (because it exists on Earth), it is plausible that intelligent life exists (because it exists on Earth) that has developed aircraft/spacecraft (because humans have developed them on Earth). It being plausible (and these are all detectable things) doesn't mean they do exist, only that there exists logical reasons and evidence to suggest they might exist.

This is the very same reason that it is hypothesized that other universes exist, because at least one exists.

Ok, so tell me how this sounds.

I have proof that alien spacecraft do not exist, but alien spacecraft might exist.

If you have proof that aliens don't exist, then you must know more than anyone else, and you must know a great deal more about the universe than, say Stephen Hawking for example.




What kind of fucked-up logic leads you to draw those conclusions based off of what I said?

Do you know what the word "plausible" means?

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: