Evidence Of Absence.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-08-2015, 07:15 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 07:14 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 07:03 PM)Chas Wrote:  It is not inconsistent. Read the actual fucking words.
My conclusion is not a claim of proof or knowledge. It is my assessment based on the evidence (and lack of evidence).

I know.... you later modified it to 'tentative' conclusion. It's just that usually we don't conclude something until we know it. So it sounds weird to say "I don't know whether or not god exists, but I conclude that god doesn't exist." Wouldn't you agree?

No. How many times do you need to be told no to these types of questions based around your straw men?

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, 07:17 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 07:01 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "Would you consider "Gods do not exist" to be a claim?"

No, because it is a statement that is contingent upon god claims.
OK, I take it that this phrase for you means that you reject the claims for gods.
I'd word it differently myself but at least I think I understand what you mean when you say it.

BTW I think there is probably no difference between my ignostocism and your 7 on Dawkin's scale. Just labels.

I read Dawkin's scale differently than you so I don't use the 7 label for myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
24-08-2015, 07:18 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 07:17 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 07:01 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "Would you consider "Gods do not exist" to be a claim?"

No, because it is a statement that is contingent upon god claims.
OK, I take it that this phrase for you means that you reject the claims for gods.
I'd word it differently myself but at least I think I understand what you mean when you say it.

BTW I think there is probably no difference between my ignostocism and your 7 on Dawkin's scale. Just labels.

I read Dawkin's scale differently than you so I don't use the 7 label for myself.

Fair enough

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, 07:19 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 07:17 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 07:01 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "Would you consider "Gods do not exist" to be a claim?"

No, because it is a statement that is contingent upon god claims.
OK, I take it that this phrase for you means that you reject the claims for gods.
I'd word it differently myself but at least I think I understand what you mean when you say it.

BTW I think there is probably no difference between my ignostocism and your 7 on Dawkin's scale. Just labels.

I read Dawkin's scale differently than you so I don't use the 7 label for myself.

And I am 100% certain there is no God.

Big Grin

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
24-08-2015, 07:22 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 06:58 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 06:56 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  No, I mean to say that the only conclusion that can be drawn from a lack of evidence is that they don't exist elsewhere. That does not mean they are implausible and cannot exist.

For instance, if I find a lack of evidence for the relationship between 2 factors and then look for a regression between them and find none, my conclusion would be that based on the lack of evidence for correlation, they are not correlated.

Perhaps with a larger dataset, or the removal of any complicating factors, a correlation would be apparent. But I can't conclude anything based on information I don't have.

For instance, when faced with something like this:

[Image: normal_random_noise_plot.gif]

The only conclusion you could draw (based on a lack of evidence for a correlation) is the nonexistence of a correlation.

That's not lack of evidence. Lack of evidence would be having no plot to look at. That plot is positive evidence for no correlation, and negative evidence for correlation. It's evidence, not lack of evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2015, 07:23 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 07:22 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 06:58 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  For instance, when faced with something like this:

[Image: normal_random_noise_plot.gif]

The only conclusion you could draw (based on a lack of evidence for a correlation) is the nonexistence of a correlation.

That's not lack of evidence. Lack of evidence would be having no plot to look at. That plot is positive evidence for no correlation, and negative evidence for correlation. It's evidence, not lack of evidence.

And you don't understand a regression. Surprise of the century.

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, 07:29 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 07:09 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 07:06 PM)Chas Wrote:  And I am saying that is not a valid conclusion.


Yes, your conclusion might be that they are not correlated because the evidence is strong (but not conclusive).
But that is not really on a par with an existence claim.

"And I am saying that is not a valid conclusion."

Yeah, I will remain in disagreement. I have drawn a conclusion from my observation. This is not actually a debatable point.

Yes, there has been quite a bit of tripping and fumbling by all of us with word choices. So, yeah, reaching a conclusion (or not) is what one does after weighing the evidence.

What I suppose I'm trying to say is that concluding that there are no aliens is not really a very good conclusion based on what we know about the universe.
A stronger logical conclusion is that we don't know.

Quote:"Yes, your conclusion might be that they are not correlated because the evidence is strong (but not conclusive).
But that is not really on a par with an existence claim."


For a claim that can have no evidence (something that doesn't exist, not existing), I can expect no evidence. So when I see no evidence everywhere and no demonstration of plausibility, I can conclude no god exists.

Well, yeah. That's what makes us atheists. But concluding is not proving.

Quote:Take notice that I am not using the word "know" so as to say that I "know" no gods exist, I think that is a pointless phrase in the end. I know no god claim has ever been demonstrated plausible. This all I need to conclude that god cannot exist.

Well, I am equating the 7.0 on the Dawkins Scale with 'knowing'.

As the evidence mounts, we approach 7.0 asymptotically.

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
24-08-2015, 07:33 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 07:29 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 07:09 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "And I am saying that is not a valid conclusion."

Yeah, I will remain in disagreement. I have drawn a conclusion from my observation. This is not actually a debatable point.

Yes, there has been quite a bit of tripping and fumbling by all of us with word choices. So, yeah, reaching a conclusion (or not) is what one does after weighing the evidence.

What I suppose I'm trying to say is that concluding that there are no aliens is not really a very good conclusion based on what we know about the universe.
A stronger logical conclusion is that we don't know.

Quote:"Yes, your conclusion might be that they are not correlated because the evidence is strong (but not conclusive).
But that is not really on a par with an existence claim."


For a claim that can have no evidence (something that doesn't exist, not existing), I can expect no evidence. So when I see no evidence everywhere and no demonstration of plausibility, I can conclude no god exists.

Well, yeah. That's what makes us atheists. But concluding is not proving.

Quote:Take notice that I am not using the word "know" so as to say that I "know" no gods exist, I think that is a pointless phrase in the end. I know no god claim has ever been demonstrated plausible. This all I need to conclude that god cannot exist.

Well, I am equating the 7.0 on the Dawkins Scale with 'knowing'.

As the evidence mounts, we approach 7.0 asymptotically.

"What I suppose I'm trying to say is that concluding that there are no aliens is not really a very good conclusion based on what we know about the universe.
A stronger logical conclusion is that we don't know."


Based on what we know, all we can conclude at this point in time is that there are no aliens. Aliens are plausible to exist, but not known to exist. (I remain careful to not say "known not to exist" since we know they are plausible to exist)

" But concluding is not proving."

I don't believe I have ever equated proving with concluding.

"Well, I am equating the 7.0 on the Dawkins Scale with 'knowing'."

And I am not, because if knowledge is only ever defined strictly as 100% certainty, then the words "know" or "knowing" have no realistic meaning.

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, 07:39 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
concluding without proof = faith
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2015, 07:40 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 07:39 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  concluding without proof = faith

No, now you are redefining words to suit your straw men. Facepalm

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: