Evidence Of Absence.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-08-2015, 09:32 AM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(25-08-2015 09:22 AM)Free Wrote:  
(25-08-2015 09:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  With no evidence for or against, it remains unknown whether it is possible.

In this case "unknown" does not eliminate the possibility because there is evidence to indicate the possibility.

Quote:"Not possible" does not logically follow from "no evidence".

If there is no evidence, it is rightfully determined as not being possible.

No, it is not 'rightfully determined' - it is unknown.

Quote:For anything to be possible, it must be capable, and for anything to be capable, something must exist.

Something? What do you mean?

Quote:If there is no evidence in existence, it is therefore not capable, and it follows that it is not possible.

No, it simply means there is no evidence. One can come to a conclusion that X is not possible, but it hasn't been determined - it remains an unknown.

Quote:This, of course, is in real-time. But real-time is all we have.

How does that apply?


Your argument makes illogical leaps from unsound premises.

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
25-08-2015, 09:37 AM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
Hum. It's hardly required to use the whole apparatus of science to conclude that walking on the Moon is possible, once it's been achieved. These kinds of trivially true statements and *proof* of natural laws are two different beasts though.

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
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
25-08-2015, 09:41 AM (This post was last modified: 25-08-2015 10:08 AM by Free.)
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(25-08-2015 09:32 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-08-2015 09:22 AM)Free Wrote:  In this case "unknown" does not eliminate the possibility because there is evidence to indicate the possibility.


If there is no evidence, it is rightfully determined as not being possible.

No, it is not 'rightfully determined' - it is unknown.

No, it is known. You can know that something does not exist by employing the exact same process as you use to determine if something does exist. If you observe/detect something, it exists. If it is not observable, then we have a garage dragon.

What is the difference between a garage dragon and a dragon that does not exist at all?

(Note: It is not lost on me that you did not directly contribute an answer to this question on the other topic.)

Wink

Quote:
Quote:For anything to be possible, it must be capable, and for anything to be capable, something must exist.

Something? What do you mean?

The evidence to support its capability.

Quote:
Quote:If there is no evidence in existence, it is therefore not capable, and it follows that it is not possible.

No, it simply means there is no evidence. One can come to a conclusion that X is not possible, but it hasn't been determined - it remains an unknown.

Garage Dragon?

Wink

Quote:
Quote:This, of course, is in real-time. But real-time is all we have.

How does that apply?

Isn't that obvious? Tomorrow isn't real-time.


Quote:Your argument makes illogical leaps from unsound premises.

No, it is solid. Things are either True, False, Unknown, or Unspecified. But in each case, something must exist or something doesn't exist.

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
25-08-2015, 10:28 AM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(25-08-2015 09:41 AM)Free Wrote:  
(25-08-2015 09:32 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, it is not 'rightfully determined' - it is unknown.

No, it is known. You can know that something does not exist by employing the exact same process as you use to determine if something does exist. If you observe/detect something, it exists. If it is not observable, then we have a garage dragon.

Lack of evidence is not the same no evidence possible.

Quote:What is the difference between a garage dragon and a dragon that does not exist at all?

(Note: It is not lost on me that you did not directly contribute an answer to this question on the other topic.)

Wink

Sagan posed it as a rhetorical question, however I did say there was no discernible difference.

Quote:
Quote:Something? What do you mean?

The evidence to support its capability.

Possibility does not require evidence. To make the claim that something is not possible, you need to supply evidence that it is not possible.
This seems to be your central logical error.

And to forestall a pointless reply, claiming that meant it is possible is the same logical error.

Quote:
Quote:No, it simply means there is no evidence. One can come to a conclusion that X is not possible, but it hasn't been determined - it remains an unknown.

Garage Dragon?

Wink

"Garage dragon" is defined as being undetectable. You cannot simple declare something a garage dragon - you must prove it.

Quote:
Quote:How does that apply?

Isn't that obvious? Tomorrow isn't real-time.


Quote:Your argument makes illogical leaps from unsound premises.

No, it is solid. Things are either True, False, Unknown, or Unspecified. But in each case, something must exist or something doesn't exist.

There's that slippery 'something' again. What something?

You are claiming that nothing is possible unless you can demonstrate that it is?
That is simply wrong. If there is no evidence, you can't tell if it is possible or impossible.

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
25-08-2015, 10:36 AM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(25-08-2015 09:25 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(25-08-2015 09:04 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Scientists generally do not "prove" things. It's an inductive discipline. Conclusions are always tentative and subject to falsification and/or revision. Scientists use evidence to support their conclusions, but evidence and proof are two different things. Mathematicians use proof. Scientists use evidence.

Your strong desire for everything to be black & white, 100% or 0%, is a pretty good fit for mathematics, but the real world doesn't work that way, and science deals with the real world.

I think that's far to weak to say that scientists don't prove things. Is walking on the moon not proof that we can walk on the moon?

Can we not prove that water is hydrogen and oxygen?

Sure, we use induction when we're talking about theories, but no one really claims that their theory is conclusive, that's why it's still a theory. Similarly, no one theorizes that it's possible to walk on the moon, and that's because we saw it happen. We know it's possible, and after seeing it happen we can confidently conclude that it's possible without any induction.

No. As morondog has pointed out, your examples are trivial. Those are facts. They are the raw data of science. Science discovers (not proves) that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen. Science inductively determines laws of motion, gravitation, etc., and then engineers use that to build rockets and send them to the moon. Landing on the moon is an engineering feat -- it is no longer science.

The things that are being argued about in this thread are not of the same nature as landing on the moon or the composition of water.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
25-08-2015, 10:41 AM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
If I go outside, am I still inside?

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2015, 10:47 AM (This post was last modified: 25-08-2015 02:02 PM by Free.)
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(25-08-2015 10:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-08-2015 09:41 AM)Free Wrote:  No, it is known. You can know that something does not exist by employing the exact same process as you use to determine if something does exist. If you observe/detect something, it exists. If it is not observable, then we have a garage dragon.

Lack of evidence is not the same no evidence possible.

Lack of evidence includes the definition of no evidence at all.

lack

1. the state of being without or not having enough of something.

In the context of this discussion, if there is no evidence at all to support the capability of the "possibility" to be in existence, it therefore does not exist.

Quote:
Quote:What is the difference between a garage dragon and a dragon that does not exist at all?

(Note: It is not lost on me that you did not directly contribute an answer to this question on the other topic.)

Wink

Sagan posed it as a rhetorical question, however I did say there was no discernible difference.

That's right, there is nothing in existence to discern any difference between the two.

Quote:
Quote:The evidence to support its capability.

Possibility does not require evidence. To make the claim that something is not possible, you need to supply evidence that it is not possible.
This seems to be your central logical error.

And to forestall a pointless reply, claiming that meant it is possible is the same logical error.

No, the logical error does not fall on me, for the burden of proof is yours. If you claim that a possibility exists, it is no different than claiming that anything else exists which has no evidence, such as God.

We are not required to prove the non existence of God to be 100% certain he doesn't exist, nor are we required to prove that a possibility does not exist.

You are making the logical error of expecting anyone to prove a negative, and since physical proof of a negative is impossible, then that which is impossible is not in existence.

You are asking me to prove something that is not in existence, and expecting that evidence?

You do understand that to claim that something is possible when there is no evidence for it to be capable is nothing more than an unfalsifiable claim?

No, you are in the wrong here. You cannot expect anyone to prove the impossible, for it is completely unreasonable, and defies reason completely.

Quote:
Quote:Garage Dragon?

Wink

"Garage dragon" is defined as being undetectable. You cannot simple declare something a garage dragon - you must prove it.

No, see above.

Quote:
Quote:No, it is solid. Things are either True, False, Unknown, or Unspecified. But in each case, something must exist or something doesn't exist.

There's that slippery 'something' again. What something?

Something- evidence- to support the capability of it being True, False, Unknown, or Unspecified.

Quote:You are claiming that nothing is possible unless you can demonstrate that it is? That is simply wrong. If there is no evidence, you can't tell if it is possible or impossible.

If there is no evidence to support the possibility as being capable of existing, then it simply does not exist.

And that's how reality works.

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
25-08-2015, 01:37 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(25-08-2015 10:41 AM)Banjo Wrote:  If I go outside, am I still inside?
You could be.

You go outside your bedroom but you are still inside your house.

Next question please.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2015, 05:18 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(23-08-2015 04:50 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  ...
I just don't see how you can know something without believing it. I reckon we'll have to agree to disagree. Cool

Indeed, but it seems to boil down to our definitions of "belief", "knowledge" and our degrees of certainty.

But, you'd agree that we can believe something without knowing it, yes?

(24-08-2015 07:48 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  ...
It's illogical to come to a conclusion without it being proven.

Is there an equivocation happening regarding conclusion vs. conclusive?

My OP is based on a pretty normal assessment report that I would do (for exorbitant consultancy fees) for a client who is asking for recommendations based on conclusions that are based on evidence (or lack of).

Even without "conclusive" "proof", I can draw "conclusions" based on what I have dug up (or failed to have dugged up).

The archaeological analogy, btw, is the reason that auditors refer to evidence as 'artefacts'.

(24-08-2015 06:42 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  ...
DLJ,

The reason I press on this issue, is because I think our (atheists) best approach in the god debate is not to convince people that there is no evidence for god, because many theists believe that the origin of the universe and the origin of life are suggestive evidence for at a minimum, something supernatural. Until we can fully explain those things, we aren't going to convince them that they have no suggestive evidence. But, I think there is ground to be made in teaching skepticism and critical reasoning. I think it's pretty easy to get theists to agree that their evidence for god is not conclusive. Even the firmest of believers will usually admit that belief in god requires faith, and faith is only required in the absence of conclusive evidence. If we can get people to agree that it's unwise to take suggestive evidence and then draw a conclusion from that, then perhaps we could be closer to getting the religious to accept that their "belief" in god, is really just a hypothesis based on their interpretation of suggestive evidence. If we atheists are guilty of the same thing, i.e. taking evidence that we feel suggests no god, and then going ahead and concluding that there is no god, then we are guilty of the same flaw (faith), and our case becomes much less convincing.

I think our best possible approach is not to try to convince people that there is either no evidence, or negating evidence for god, but rather to try to convince them that suggestive evidence is not enough to draw a conclusion. We need to learn to be comfortable without conclusions. After all, there are quite a few things that we just don't know yet.

Same again.

I have no problem with the wisdom of taking "suggestive evidence [or lack of] and then draw a conclusion from that" but I would not suggest that one should be "going ahead and concluding that there is no god" unless the definition of this god has been stated and the attributes of this god could be (at least potentially) supported by evidence.

My approach, instead, would be to question the basis for this conclusion (this non-conclusive conclusion) i.e. the epistemology ... is it based on Faith or evidence, logic and reason?

And ... in an assessment, "we just don't know yet" is a valid conclusion.

A non-conclusive conclusion.

Don't you just adore the English language?

Big Grin

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
26-08-2015, 05:29 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 06:38 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 09:47 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
DEITY ASSESSMENT REPORT
COSMOS ENTERPRISES
6TH MILLENNIUM SINCE CREATION

SPONSOR: Humanity.
SCOPE: All of creation
ASSESSOR: TTA Consulting Services

...
Wow, what a huge load of bullshit.

Eat up, how does that taste.
Perhaps that taste of shit mixed with emptiness filled with greed will leave your palate once you wake up out of your little selfish dreamlands with no consequences or significance.

Not negative towards you all.

Negative towards the sorry bastards that manipulate false data and claim truth.

They will be of the truly damned unless they revert to selfless honesty.

Apologists (as their self-descriptor indicates) are a very good example of those "sorry bastards that manipulate false [and also true] data and claim truth".

But it appears that we do agree on one thing ... that "selfless honesty" is a prerequisite of enlightenment.

In the game of life, I think I'm pretty close to that achievement (having slain the end-stage monsters at many levels) but I have still to face the big baddie at the end of the game.

I hope it won't be a disappointment.

Cool

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: