Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Ghosts, Haunting & Beings from other Realms
Believers or skeptics
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Kairos" data-source="post: 184552" data-attributes="member: 10263"><p>I would add that, in this bucket experiment, as I approach the total number of marbles examined, my confidence in a conclusion can grow stronger. If there were a thousand marbles, and I was able to examine 900 marbles without finding any red marble, then my confidence that the hypothesis was false grows, converging on 100% as I examine the last marble, finding no red marble.</p><p></p><p>But in practical matters, and this is where the fallacy really fails terribly most of the time, you have no idea how many "marbles" are in the bucket corresponding to some problem. The only thing you really know is that you <em>don't know</em>. So to say you examined 900 marbles and therefore your confidence level that some event or phenomenon does not exist reaches 90-95% is utterly absurd because you have no idea the scope of possible events or observations.</p><p></p><p>Thus, to say absence of evidence is evidence of absence, when you have no idea how broad some phenomenon may be, or how limited your ability to measure it may be, or any number of limiting factors, is quite simply foolish. Fools throughout all time do this. This is how hedge fund traders make fortunes, turning fools upside down and cleaning out their pockets every time some high impact event occurs that prior probability said was nearly impossible (until it wasn't).</p><p></p><p>Just limit yourself to what you actually know. It's fine to speculate. It's fine, even, to state openly that you don't believe something exists (and even give reasons why). But going about declaring something you don't understand as nonexistent because you were not personally shown evidence of it is the act of a fool. Don't be that guy. History is replete with examples of fools in academia making such statements only to be proven wrong.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Kairos, post: 184552, member: 10263"] I would add that, in this bucket experiment, as I approach the total number of marbles examined, my confidence in a conclusion can grow stronger. If there were a thousand marbles, and I was able to examine 900 marbles without finding any red marble, then my confidence that the hypothesis was false grows, converging on 100% as I examine the last marble, finding no red marble. But in practical matters, and this is where the fallacy really fails terribly most of the time, you have no idea how many "marbles" are in the bucket corresponding to some problem. The only thing you really know is that you [I]don't know[/I]. So to say you examined 900 marbles and therefore your confidence level that some event or phenomenon does not exist reaches 90-95% is utterly absurd because you have no idea the scope of possible events or observations. Thus, to say absence of evidence is evidence of absence, when you have no idea how broad some phenomenon may be, or how limited your ability to measure it may be, or any number of limiting factors, is quite simply foolish. Fools throughout all time do this. This is how hedge fund traders make fortunes, turning fools upside down and cleaning out their pockets every time some high impact event occurs that prior probability said was nearly impossible (until it wasn't). Just limit yourself to what you actually know. It's fine to speculate. It's fine, even, to state openly that you don't believe something exists (and even give reasons why). But going about declaring something you don't understand as nonexistent because you were not personally shown evidence of it is the act of a fool. Don't be that guy. History is replete with examples of fools in academia making such statements only to be proven wrong. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Ghosts, Haunting & Beings from other Realms
Believers or skeptics
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top