Is 'no evidence' really evidence?

[Mulder]

When can a lack of evidence appear to be evidence? In creationism, for one. Against the vast body of evidence in favour of evolution we have an almost total lack of evidence for any of the events described in Genesis. Also there are orbs (not as world shattering but the same idea, I think). There is overwhelming evidence that orbs are photographic artefacts versus next to none that they are ghosts or spirits. Isn't life odd ... :smiley:

[Pebble]

When can a lack of evidence appear to be evidence? In creationism, for one. Against the vast body of evidence in favour of evolution we have an almost total lack of evidence for any of the events described in Genesis. Also there are orbs (not as world shattering but the same idea, I think). There is overwhelming evidence that orbs are photographic artefacts versus next to none that they are ghosts or spirits. Isn't life odd ... :smiley:


Believers are like mushrooms, thrive in the dark, if kept warm and comfy and fed shite.

[Mulder]

I do find it striking that people seem to almost derive strength from positions based on little or no evidence. I suppose it's because they can attack the 'other sides' evidence without having to defend their own (there being none to defend). However, I do wonder how they can feel comfortable in such a logically precarious position.

[Dubious Dick]

Believers do not believe in logic and rational hence why they reject it. As I said on another post, I have heard "Faith is an oasis that can never be reached by the caravan of reason" I have since discovered that this is a quote from Khalil Ghilbran, a spiritual religious writer.

So you cannot expect to engage on the same level.

[Mongrel]

I do find it striking that people seem to almost derive strength from positions based on little or no evidence. I suppose it's because they can attack the 'other sides' evidence without having to defend their own (there being none to defend). However, I do wonder how they can feel comfortable in such a logically precarious position.

Nothing sums it up better than William Dembskis' quote
As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering

Source: William Dembski Organisms using GAs vs. Organisms being built by GAs thread at ISCID 18. September 2002, Mercilessly re-quoted at The Pandas Thumb (http://pandasthumb.org/)

[Trinoc]

It's said (particularly on Time Team) that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" ... but I disagree. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, but it is not proof of absence. To prove something exists, all you have to do is produce it, but you can't prove something doesn't exist, you can only infer it doesn't with a very high probability, which gets higher every time there is a possibility for evidence to appear and it fails to show up.

This is also apparent in the statement "you can't prove a negative".

This rather turns the scientific method on its head ... normally, you can only disprove a hypothesis by finding contrary evidence, but you can never absolutely prove it is true - in other words, the only thing you can prove is a negative. I don't think these two approaches actually contradict each other - they just appear to do so because of the terminology. Maybe we need a new way of describing the scientific process which can include both ideas without having to redefine terms between them.

[Acleron]

Nothing sums it up better than William Dembskis' quote

As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering

Absolutely suberb. Hadn't seen this particular idiocy. He starts off by denying he is going to take the bait and then swallows it hook line and sinker. Mongrel, you have made me happy and that is not a mean feat. :cheesy::cheesy::cheesy:

[Mongrel]

Absolutely suberb. Hadn't seen this particular idiocy. He starts off by denying he is going to take the bait and then swallows it hook line and sinker. Mongrel, you have made me happy and that is not a mean feat. :cheesy::cheesy::cheesy:

I only showed you the quote, they managed to produce the idiocy all by themselves :smiley:

[edd]

It's said (particularly on Time Team) that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" ... but I disagree. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, but it is not proof of absence. To prove something exists, all you have to do is produce it, but you can't prove something doesn't exist, you can only infer it doesn't with a very high probability, which gets higher every time there is a possibility for evidence to appear and it fails to show up.


Proof is horribly misused. In its strictest form you'll get proof in mathematics and logic and that's it. If you ask the man on the street what constitutes proof, it's not the same thing. It's not the same thing in a court of law and it's not the same thing in most sciences. In all those latter cases it's evidence that supports an extremely high degree of belief.
Focussing on 'proof' in discussions like this seems to me to be missing the point.

Here, absence of evidence is evidence of absence when you've gone looking for evidence that should be there and isn't. If you've not looked, it's not evidence of absence. Simple as that, I reckon.



This is also apparent in the statement "you can't prove a negative".

This rather turns the scientific method on its head ... normally, you can only disprove a hypothesis by finding contrary evidence, but you can never absolutely prove it is true - in other words, the only thing you can prove is a negative. I don't think these two approaches actually contradict each other - they just appear to do so because of the terminology. Maybe we need a new way of describing the scientific process which can include both ideas without having to redefine terms between them.

This is somewhat untrue as well. You might try to disprove the negative "There are no purple elephants" and someone comes back with a photograph of a purple elephant. This isn't actually proof purple elephants exist though, as it might be photoshopped, the film might have done something weird, someone may have attacked the elephant with a very large bucket of purple paint....
The "can't prove a negative" is only in its strictest form constrained to a rather small set of statements, and in almost all others it is used for it provides only a rule of thumb about the relative ease of acquiring evidence for different kinds of statement, and that's about it.