On the Existence of Garage Dragons
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-08-2015, 07:26 PM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2015 07:42 PM by Chas.)
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(22-08-2015 07:01 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(21-08-2015 03:54 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  For instance, what atheist here has proclaimed to have evidence of the nonexistence of anything, let alone any given theist or deist's god claims?

(21-08-2015 08:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  The absence of evidence that should be there is very much the evidence of absence.

Here, Chas is proclaiming to have evidence for the nonexistence of god. Just sayin....

Yes, as a matter of fact, I am. What I am not claiming is proof.
The evidence is the complete and utter lack of any evidence for the existence of any effects of one or the necessity of one to explain anything.

And mosquitoes. Mosquitoes are evidence of the non-existence of any loving gods. Drinking Beverage

And poison ivy, polio, pneumonia, parasites, palsy, pleurisy, pedophiles, pancreatitis, peritonitis, pertussis, pulmonary embolism, pandemics, peptic ulcers, poisons, phlebitis, and pimples.

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, 07:36 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(22-08-2015 07:01 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(21-08-2015 03:54 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  For instance, what atheist here has proclaimed to have evidence of the nonexistence of anything, let alone any given theist or deist's god claims?

(21-08-2015 08:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  The absence of evidence that should be there is very much the evidence of absence.

Here, Chas is proclaiming to have evidence for the nonexistence of god. Just sayin....

The difference between evidence that something is absent (e.g. an observation that suggests there were no dragons here today) and a simple absence of evidence (e.g. no careful research has been done) can be nuanced.

Indeed, scientists will often debate whether an experiment's result should be considered evidence of absence, or if it remains absence of evidence. The debate is whether the experiment would have detected the phenomenon of interest if it was there.

In carefully designed scientific experiments, even null results can be evidence of absence. For instance, a hypothesis may be falsified if a vital predicted observation is not found empirically.

Evidence of Absence.

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, 08:04 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(22-08-2015 07:36 PM)Free Wrote:  In carefully designed scientific experiments, even null results can be evidence of absence. For instance, a hypothesis may be falsified if a vital predicted observation is not found empirically.

That would be negative evidence for the claim that the observation would be seen if tested. Which is the same as positive evidence for the negation of the claim. Absence of evidence would be not having a method to perform the experiment.

This fallacy is pointed out in the video I posted in the absence of evidence thread.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 08:07 PM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2015 08:36 PM by Free.)
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(22-08-2015 08:04 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 07:36 PM)Free Wrote:  In carefully designed scientific experiments, even null results can be evidence of absence. For instance, a hypothesis may be falsified if a vital predicted observation is not found empirically.

That would be negative evidence for the claim that the observation would be seen if tested. Which is the same as positive evidence for the negation of the claim. Absence of evidence would be not having a method to perform the experiment.

This fallacy is pointed out in the video I posted in the absence of evidence thread.

You seem awfully confused between Evidence of Absence and Absence of Evidence.

There is no such thing as "negative" physical evidence in existence in our reality.

Evidence of absence is positive evidence because it positively confirms the non existence of something that was proposed as being in existence.

This is regarded as "demonstrable evidence", as opposed to physical evidence.

demonstrable:

adjective
1. capable of being demonstrated or proved.
2. clearly evident; obvious: a demonstrable lack of concern for the general welfare.

Dictionary

Therefore, the non existence of either the garage dragon or God is positively confirmed as they have been positively demonstrated as not existing.

And that is why I am Atheist 7.0

Smartass

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, 08:12 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(22-08-2015 07:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  Refer to what a rhetorical question is and why it is used, you will see that it is central to the argument.
If Carl's main point was to show that an undetectable entity is no different from one that doesn't exist they why would have he started with "A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"? Why did he not instead start with "An invisible incorporeal undetectable dragon lives in my garage". There was no need for the walk through steps of discovering evidence only to have it shot down with the definition of the dragon changing. The analogy would seem a complete waste of time.

If Carl's initial claim was that the dragon was invisible, incorporeal and undetectable and if his conclusion was that the dragon does not exist, then I would agree with you regarding Carl's point. I would of course disagree with both you and Carl regarding the conclusion and I would question the value in the point given that it has an extremely limited application. But at least I would agree that you and Carl are aligned.

I put a lot of weight on his initial claim and on his conclusion, especially his conclusion. With regards to his rhetorical question, I certainly don't come to the answer that you and Unbeliever come to. But then again our "garage dragons" are very different. I include Big foot and Loch ness etc because I am focused on the claim being ill-defined and untestable rather than the subject being physically undetectable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 08:17 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(22-08-2015 08:12 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 07:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  Refer to what a rhetorical question is and why it is used, you will see that it is central to the argument.
If Carl's main point was to show that an undetectable entity is no different from one that doesn't exist they why would have he started with "A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"? Why did he not instead start with "An invisible incorporeal undetectable dragon lives in my garage". There was no need for the walk through steps of discovering evidence only to have it shot down with the definition of the dragon changing. The analogy would seem a complete waste of time.

He did that because he was an excellent writer. The example is bold and colorful, therefore memorable.

Quote:If Carl's initial claim was that the dragon was invisible, incorporeal and undetectable and if his conclusion was that the dragon does not exist, then I would agree with you regarding Carl's point. I would of course disagree with both you and Carl regarding the conclusion and I would question the value in the point given that it has an extremely limited application. But at least I would agree that you and Carl are aligned.

Did you know Sagan personally? Consider

The rhetorical question was not to claim non-existence, it was to make the reader think about whether there is a difference between undetectable and non-existent.

Quote:I put a lot of weight on his initial claim and on his conclusion, especially his conclusion. With regards to his rhetorical question, I certainly don't come to the answer that you and Unbeliever come to. But then again our "garage dragons" are very different. I include Big foot and Loch ness etc because I am focused on the claim being ill-defined and untestable rather than the subject being physically undetectable.

You are dead wrong about bigfoot and Nessie - they do not fit the definition at all, and it is dismaying that you persist with that when it is so obviously incorrect.
If you want to include them for some reason, you mneed to come up with your own definition and not pervert Sagan's.

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
23-08-2015, 06:00 AM (This post was last modified: 23-08-2015 07:57 AM by Matt Finney.)
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
My take on the story is that Sagan was trying to show that our failure to invalidate a claim, doesn't necessarily give us any evidence for the truth of the claim. And this works in both directions. If we fail to prove a claim true, this alone doesn't indicate that the claim is false, and it doesn't even tell us that the claim is probably, or likely, false. It only tells us that we failed to prove the claim.

In the case of the dragon, there is absence of evidence (not evidence of absence), and as Sagan points out, this doesn't tell us anything about whether the claim is true or false.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2015, 07:42 AM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
These entities are detectable, and in being so are not diestic. As in God set all in motion and too plays an observable role from day to day.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2015, 07:52 AM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(23-08-2015 07:42 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  These entities are detectable, and in being so are not diestic. As in God set all in motion and too plays an observable role from day to day.

Exactly what is observable? How are you determining that what you are observing is a god?

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2015, 08:21 AM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(23-08-2015 07:52 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(23-08-2015 07:42 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  These entities are detectable, and in being so are not diestic. As in God set all in motion and too plays an observable role from day to day.

Exactly what is observable? How are you determining that what you are observing is a god?
It boils down to personal confirmation. These things that I observe are by definition not provable to others that do not have faith. I can explain it all day but you will only call it here it's a blast for me or nonsense. It can be things as seemingly as mundane as the formation of clouds heat lightning activity over it can be things as intermost as confirmation to self such as a physical feeling an overwhelming joy tears of joy and so forth and so on I can go into further detail but you I asked you first ask a particular question thank you
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: