🛡️ Debate Believers or skeptics

[Mayhem]

Simple probability: yellow marble

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia


Absence of evidence[edit]
These examples contain or represent missing information.

• Statements that begin with "I can't prove it but ..." are often referring to some kind of absence of evidence.
  "There is no evidence of aliens, and therefore, aliens do not exist" appeals to an absence of evidence.

Evidence of absence[edit]
Main article: Evidence of absence
These examples contain definite evidence that can be used to show, indicate, suggest, infer or deduce the non-existence or non-presence of something.

• One very carefully inspects the back seat of one's car and finds no adult-sized kangaroos.
• The police did not find a gun in the suspect's clothing.
• The elderly patient did not have any teeth in his mouth.
  
  
  
• Null result[edit]
  Null result is a term often used in science to indicate evidence of absence. A search for water on the ground may yield a null result (the ground is dry); therefore, it probably did not rain.
  
  Always be looked at another way dig deeper and water is found, yet its the question that deems the answer .
  
  "A search for water on the ground".
  
  A man comes across a barrel labelled " Filled with 5 cents" Does he take it for certain it does not contain a single 10 cent piece?

 

[Harte]

It is better to simply state that you don't believe some proposition is true, giving affirmative reasons based on what we actually know and have observed.

Saying something does not exist because we have not yet discovered the evidence is fallacious. Literally every species we discovered didn't suddenly come into existence when we discovered evidence of them.

Nobody is saying something doesn't exist. What I am saying is that absence of evidence is EVIDENCE of absence. NOT proof of absence.
You didn't answer the question, by the way.
So, you will say that unicorns exist?
What about leprechauns?

How do we come to the conclusion that these things are mythical?

A detective is called to a possible crime scene. There are 45 caliber cartridges everywhere and a lot of blood, but no body.
Was someone shot?
Who knows?

But there is evidence that someone was shot.

However, maybe they were stabbed when the assailant ran out of bullets.

See, evidence is NOT proof.
And absence of evidence is not proof of absence. But it IS evidence of absence.

Harte

 

[Kairos]

Nobody is saying something doesn't exist. What I am saying is that absence of evidence is EVIDENCE of absence. NOT proof of absence.

And I have shown you without question that is a fallacy.

For a century white explorers were told tales of giant apes in the mountains of Africa. They dismissed them as folktales. Was the absence of evidence of gorillas evidence that gorillas did not exist? Obviously not. Gorillas existed regardless of evidence zoologists did or did not have to that end. Their lack of evidence of gorillas did not constitute evidence gorillas were mere folktales.

The lack of data is not evidence of anything. LOL

 

[Mayhem]

Its only evidence of someone being shot if its human blood but forensics determine that.

If it comes down to talking about mythicals, whos to say really read books, read what you like.

The eyes are the ones that prove it to yourself.

 

[Sonix]

A detective is called to a possible crime scene. There are 45 caliber cartridges everywhere and a lot of blood, but no body.
Was someone shot?
Who knows?

@Harte , there are two ways that the word evidence might be used in the context of a crime scene:

1. Facts or artifacts that might possibly later have relevance to the solution of the crime (as in a detective saying "Get all this evidence collected before anything is moved"). This use of the word evidence often includes facts or artifacts that turn out to have no bearing on the crime. For example, hair from a dog brought with a visiting relative that has been out of state for the last month would be evidence of this sort, collected with the rest, evidence from the crime scene but not evidence of the crime.
2. Facts or artifacts that have relevance to the solution of the crime. Blood on the carpet would be considered evidence of a possible crime. As you correctly note (and incorrectly suggest we are arguing differently), this evidence is not proof of a crime. It is merely an indicator of crime as one possible interpretation of the fact or artifact. The hair of the dog of the first definition is not evidence of this sort. Even if someone mistakes the dog hair as the hair of a human suspect and thinks it is evidence of the second sort, that means the person is mistaken, not that it is evidence of the second sort simply because they believe so. There is no possible interpretation of a one-month-old dog hair that makes it pertinent to determining whether a murder was committed or not, so it is not evidence of the second sort.

In regards to taking a reasonable stance on reported or experienced paranormal events, you must agree it is evidence of the second sort that should be considered. If someone mistakenly thinks their house is haunted because of chills and vibrations experienced and it is discovered the house has drafts and rattles every time the train goes by simultaneously with the person yelling "See! A ghost! The rattles! The chills!", surely you would recognize this as evidence of the first type and not the second type, because you determine they are mistaken and there is no evidence for anything other than drafts and trains. Similarly, if the crime lab tests, from the collected evidence (of the first sort), what appeared to be blood only to find it was spilled red wine, it would not be considered evidence of the second sort. They would say, "We thought maybe someone bled on the carpet but we were mistaken - it turned out to be wine", not "We found wine on the carpet and consider it evidence that someone bled there".

The point that some of us have been trying to make is that there is such a thing as absence of evidence being evidence of absence - that is the case whenever your search exhausts the the context that you are speaking of ("there are no red marbles in the bucket because I checked the entire bucket"). If your search exhausts the context, if your sample equals the entirety of what you are evaluating, this is evidence of the second sort. To suggest that exhausting the bucket and finding it void of red marbles is evidence regarding the presence or non-presence of red marbles elsewhere is just mistaken, making it evidence of the first sort and not relevant to any serious discussion of the topic of paranormal events other than how people make mistakes in their reasoning regarding evidence - whether for or against.

Even with the "haunted" house, discovering that the person's claims of chills and rattles correspond to drafts and passing trains does not provide evidence that there are no ghosts in the house - it simply dismisses what that person thought was evidence for there being ghosts there. One might reasonably say "I've seen no evidence of ghosts there and disbelieve there are ghosts there" but to say "I've seen no evidence of ghosts there and that is evidence that there are no such things as ghosts" is a fallacy.

 

[Mayhem]

The best thread on paranormalis this year.

 

[Einstein]

Do unicorns exist?

Harte

Yes!

 

[Harte]

And I have shown you without question that is a fallacy.

For a century white explorers were told tales of giant apes in the mountains of Africa. They dismissed them as folktales. Was the absence of evidence of gorillas evidence that gorillas did not exist? Obviously not.

No, it obviously WAS evidence that they didn't exist.
But they did, because evidence is not proof.
By the way, the folk tales were evidence that the apes DID exist.

Just like the empty cartridge shells and blood in my example was evidence that someone was shot, but he turned out to have been stabbed when the assailant ran out of ammo.
This is a very basic idea that you have made the decision to not understand.

Harte

 

[Harte]

@Harte , there are two ways that the word evidence might be used in the context of a crime scene:
Facts or artifacts that have relevance to the solution of the crime. Blood on the carpet would be considered evidence of a possible crime. As you correctly note (and incorrectly suggest we are arguing differently), this evidence is not proof of a crime. It is merely an indicator of crime as one possible interpretation of the fact or artifact.

My point exactly. It is evidence of a crime, not proof that a crime occurred.

In regards to taking a reasonable stance on reported or experienced paranormal events, you must agree it is evidence of the second sort that should be considered. If someone mistakenly thinks their house is haunted because of chills and vibrations experienced ...

Which I would consider as evidence of paranormal activity, albeit admittedly weak evidence

and it is discovered the house has drafts and rattles every time the train goes by simultaneously with the person yelling "See! A ghost! The rattles! The chills!", surely you would recognize this as evidence of the first type and not the second type, because you determine they are mistaken and there is no evidence for anything other than drafts and trains.

But you have not determined that. You have made a conscious choice (and probably a correct choice) to give the latter evidence more weight.

Similarly, if the crime lab tests, from the collected evidence (of the first sort), what appeared to be blood only to find it was spilled red wine, it would not be considered evidence of the second sort. They would say, "We thought maybe someone bled on the carpet but we were mistaken - it turned out to be wine", not "We found wine on the carpet and consider it evidence that someone bled there".

Certainly. But I DID stipulate that it was blood. However, maybe someone spilled a bag of donated blood. With no body to examine, we can't even establish that a crime was committed. But that doesn't mean that empty cartridge shells and blood are not evidence of a crime.

The point that some of us have been trying to make is that there is such a thing as absence of evidence being evidence of absence - that is the case whenever your search exhausts the the context that you are speaking of ("there are no red marbles in the bucket because I checked the entire bucket"). If your search exhausts the context, if your sample equals the entirety of what you are evaluating, this is evidence of the second sort.

That is completely different. If you examine the entire bucket of marbles, and find that it contains no red marble, you have PROVEN there are no red marbles in the bucket. Not the same idea at all, and not one of either of the two sorts of evidence you categorized.
You must admit that we cannot examine every cubic inch of South Florida for evidence of the Inuit though. Nor can we examine every bit of evidence for every suspected paranormal event.

To suggest that exhausting the bucket and finding it void of red marbles is evidence regarding the presence or non-presence of red marbles elsewhere is just mistaken, making it evidence of the first sort and not relevant to any serious discussion of the topic of paranormal events other than how people make mistakes in their reasoning regarding evidence - whether for or against.

People here seem to have the wrong idea of what is meant by the word "evidence."
Evidence is only an indication, not a assertion.

Even with the "haunted" house, discovering that the person's claims of chills and rattles correspond to drafts and passing trains does not provide evidence that there are no ghosts in the house - it simply dismisses what that person thought was evidence for there being ghosts there. One might reasonably say "I've seen no evidence of ghosts there and disbelieve there are ghosts there" but to say "I've seen no evidence of ghosts there and that is evidence that there are no such things as ghosts" is a fallacy.

Okay, I agree with that. But you have to agree that all we can do is examine claims that are made, not claims that are not made. Once thousands of claims have been examined and dismissed for good reasons, an apparent conclusion is on the horizon.
Couching an argument in the way you have is a much better way to make the point of the post which brought me into this in the first place. Emphases are my own:

It is also true to state that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because nobody has sufficiently proved to you that these things happen does not mean they never happen.

Additionally, the inverse is true. Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence. Trying to make future predictions based upon prior probabilities is a fool's game.

The weirdest thing about this type of experience is that you can go a really long time ignoring it and it doesn't affect your skepticism. I mean.. I was living a nightmare and still thinking of myself as a skeptic, for years. Doors opening and closing, covers ripped off my bed in the middle of the night, shadow figures, the works. I would convince myself that I had some sleep disorder or I would just make myself ignore the fact that something kept slamming the garage door shut while I was napping alone in the house. I was in graduate school at the time and would go to campus later to work in the lab or lectures, and I would be the model grad student in theoretical computer science.

I don't really know what to tell you, Harte, but I'd suggest you consider the possibility that our assumed knowledge of the universe is a bit overstated.

The bolded portions are simply not true. As you have stated, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence (but not proof of it.). I mean, you're not sitting here at my kitchen table with me are you? How do I know that?

Future predictions are successfully made every single day that are based on what has occurred in the past. The Sun will rise tomorrow. It's called inductive reasoning and allows for a false conclusion - obviously it's possible that one day the Sun will NOT come up tomorrow. We use inductive reasoning all the time. ALL. THE. TIME. Subconsciously even.

Nobody assumes that the knowledge we have of the universe is anywhere near complete. Or even true, for that matter.

Most of the time I see people incorrectly using the word "proof" when they mean "evidence." In this thread, that is reversed.

Harte

 

[Sonix]

@Harte , I rode two buses today, ate three meals, and visited family. Apparently, because you have no idea who I am and therefore have no access to evidence of any of these things, you are sitting on evidence that these buses, meals and relatives of mine don't exist. Apparently you also have evidence that every word spoken during the history of humankind that wasn't recorded was never spoken, that every tree that fell in the forest with no witness never fell, and that the uncharted depths of deep deep sea are unpopulated. Alternatively, we could admit that we don't require "evidence" as a magical touchstone to be the sole determination of what we believe. When I let my dog out the back door I do not imagine he is now roaming the streets of Paris, Rome or Moscow. This is not because I have a lack of evidence of my dog being in those distant places and have a belief that this lack of evidence is somehow evidence that my dog is not there. I don't suspect my dog is in these distant places because I have built beliefs and expectations about the world, a model of the world in which I can imagine no conceivable way that my dog could be transported to these places so quickly. That I have in the past found my dog staying close to the stoop is not evidence, however weak, that he is there now. That does not mean that I cannot reasonably expect that my dog will be near the stoop. Our means of navigating the world are much more sophisticated that the simple summing of evidence that you suggest it is and we do not lose our bearings by refusing to recognize lack of evidence to be evidence of lack. I do not believe the Inuit vacationed in South Florida. I'd be willing to consider alternatives to that belief if evidence were provided or my understanding of the world drastically changed. But I have as much evidence that the Inuit were not in Flordia as I do that you do not have a mustache - and I have no evidence whether you have a mustache one way or another. But I am at a disadvantage - you seem to have evidence to support me not having one.