Evidence Of Absence.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-08-2015, 02:43 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 02:28 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 02:19 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  cjlr,

Do you agree with TBD that it is reasonable to conclude that aliens don't exist?

His quote - which you have reproduced in its entirely, for reasons I cannot quite comprehend - states that we cannot conclude that it does exist.

You are asking me whether I agree that with the statement that we can conclude that it does not exist.

The particularly astute members of the audience might have noticed that these statements are not equivalent.

Given that BeardedDude clearly stated A, and that you have repeatedly asked whether I agree with BeardedDude that B, I can certainly conclude that you're either powerfully ignorant or hopelessly dishonest. So the answer is no; I do not agree with your straw man.

It is amazing how context and the words people actually use can have meaning. Fucking crazy.

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
24-08-2015, 02:44 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 02:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 02:14 PM)Free Wrote:  I thought it would be obvious that since "something exists" it demonstrates absolute knowledge. It doesn't matter what exists, but only the reality that we know for a certainty that something exists, and it exists independent of our own personal or collective human existence.

That doesn't follow - "existence exists" does not imply that "existence exists without me".
(clearly illustrating the aforementioned need for additional premises)

(24-08-2015 02:14 PM)Free Wrote:  This can not be demonstrated if absolute knowledge was not a reality.

It cannot be demonstrated at all. It's a self-justifying unfalsifiable premise, just like its converse.

It is axiomatic, and it's not a construct. Anything that is self evident provides us with absolute knowledge of its existence.

The fact that something exists is axiomatic, and we can be 100% certain that something exists.

But if we are to claim that absolute knowledge is not attainable, then nothing could ever be axiomatic.

The attainment of absolute knowledge is verified by anything that is axiomatic, for that which is self-evident cannot be questioned with uncertainty in regards to its existence.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2015, 03:03 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
^^ That up there, that's a pretty darned contentious position to hold.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2015, 03:05 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 03:03 PM)morondog Wrote:  ^^ That up there, that's a pretty darned contentious position to hold.

Agreed.

But I hold it.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2015, 03:10 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 03:05 PM)Free Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 03:03 PM)morondog Wrote:  ^^ That up there, that's a pretty darned contentious position to hold.

Agreed.

But I hold it.

And having seen that, I get now where your certainty comes from... I think you're nuts though. I've never seen anyone even in a logic class (OK apart from the old guys like Euclid) claim an axiom as a self-evident truth that applies to the Real World™.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2015, 03:24 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 03:10 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 03:05 PM)Free Wrote:  Agreed.

But I hold it.

And having seen that, I get now where your certainty comes from... I think you're nuts though.

Probably. Big Grin

Quote:I've never seen anyone even in a logic class (OK apart from the old guys like Euclid) claim an axiom as a self-evident truth that applies to the Real World™.

But since we interact with axioms, they are applicable to the real world.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2015, 03:27 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 01:43 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  There is evidence rain is plausible and possible. Where is the evidence a god is plausible or possible?
The example wasn't a question about the possibility of rain. It was an application of logic.
Quote:If I say "I have no evidence that it is raining therefore it is not raining", Do you think my statement is truth?
We could have instead laid this out in a more generic structure "I have no evidence for X therefore not X". Do you think this statement is truth?

By my understanding of "evidence of absence" is that you need to prove that things that should be there actually aren't.

For example, if a claim is that a cat is in a box. Then we can make the following subclaims.
For a cat to be in the box then we would expect the following testable claims to be true:
1. The cat's body should be visible inside the borders of the box when sufficient light is cast inside the box and all of the contents of the box can be seen.
2. The weight of the box should be equal to or heavier that that of the cat in question, unless the box is containing some floatation device or mechanism.
3. The cat, being warm blooded should be emitting heat, if the cat is hotter than the contents of the box and if the cat is alive.

The falsfing evidence alternatives would be:
1. A cat's body will not be visually detected within the box, under the conditions that the box's contents can be visually examined.
2. If the weight of the box is lighter than the cat and the box does not contain any flotation device and the cat is not suspended by something other than the box.
3. A heat examination of the box does not show any irregularities as would be expected if a living warm blooded animal were inside the box.

So if we do the appropriate experiments and show that the falsifying criteria is met then we can present this as evidence that the cat is not in the box. This is evidence of absence.

(24-08-2015 01:43 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You are not comparing like things. You are comparing something known to exist/occur, with something for which there is precisely no evidence is plausible or possible.
Sure. But in my new example we don't know if the cat is in the box and we have a way to falsify the claim, by examining the contents of the box.

Quote:All that can be expected of nonexistence, is nothing. So when a claim that is incongruent with reality has no evidence, it should be dismissed.
Happy to dismiss a claim.
But disagree with the statement "All that can be expected of nonexistence, is nothing."
If the cat does not exist within the box there there are several tests that can be done to prove that the cat does not exist within the box.

It appears you take god as a special case, you assume gods don't exist therefore you claim that there will never be evidence that gods don't exist, therefore you lower the bar on the idea of "evidence of absence" in this circumstance.

So in order to lower the bar, you must first assume non existence and then you can use your lowered bar version of "evidence of absence" to conclude the non existence which is what your assumption was going into the formulation of this proof.

Why don't you instead ask the claimants for falsifiable criteria before making such an assessment?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2015, 03:39 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 01:45 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  How about this question for a better comparison. I have no evidence that Santa Clause is real (and I have looked at the specific claims made for Santa Claus by people who believe in him), therefore he is not real.
So what testable subclaims can the existence of Santa have?
Do we take as part of the claim that Santa delivers presents himself on Christmas night?
Which countries does he go to? How many houses?
Can we plot a path, can we calculate the minimum speed required by Santa to get to all the houses and deliver the presents?
What would happen to a sleigh or a reindeer traveling at that speed through the atmosphere?
Do we know of a way using human technology for a single person to deliver a present to all these houses around the world within a 24 hour period?
If we set up some covert cameras, pointing to the Christmas tree and record throughout the night, what does the video footage show us? Do we see someone looking like Mum or Dad putting the Santa presents under the tree?

We could set up some experiments. We could do some calculations. We could gather some evidence supporting non existence of Santa. It just depends on how the claim is documented.

If the claim is poorly documented, do we throw out the baby with the bath water or do we merely state that the claim in insufficiently formulated for evaluation of the claim's conclusion
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2015, 03:44 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 03:24 PM)Free Wrote:  But since we interact with axioms, they are applicable to the real world.

Take Euclidean geometry. Within everyday space the axioms hold and we can do a lot of useful stuff with it. But we don't know for sure that the axioms hold everywhere - if relativity is correct then Euclid's axioms don't hold even approximately in some places e.g. near a black hole.

There's a famous essay (which I haven't read, and intend to shortly) on this very topic.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2015, 03:48 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 03:44 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 03:24 PM)Free Wrote:  But since we interact with axioms, they are applicable to the real world.

Take Euclidean geometry. Within everyday space the axioms hold and we can do a lot of useful stuff with it. But we don't know for sure that the axioms hold everywhere - if relativity is correct then Euclid's axioms don't hold even approximately in some places e.g. near a black hole.

There's a famous essay (which I haven't read, and intend to shortly) on this very topic.

But what of the singular "physical" axiom of existence itself? Regardless of how we define the "something" in my position of "something exists," the reality is that it is axiomatic in its nature.

Do you think perhaps the universe is axiomatic?

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: