Absence of Evidence

I misused disjoint, I meant independent such that the covariance between A and B would be essentially random (but again, still a massive oversimplification as you've pointed out given that one quadrant is essentially oxymoronic and another is incredibly improbable)

Anyways, we never argue from an absence of evidence because it's impractical. Try doing that at work, and see if you can last a day before getting canned

It really does depend, though. Sure, in a court room it is said that you never prove a defendant non-guilty, only fail to prove them guilty, but at the same time it is said that in science you never prove a model right ("guilty" of being accurate), you can only prove it wrong. I don't like to speak of proofs in either case. The point is that an absence of evidence can itself be - and in many cases is - a state of affairs that is strictly contrary to an expectation/prediction. As such it can serve to not just "fail to confirm", but in a very real and actual sense "disconfirm" what ever model had informed the expectation. If we say that an absence of evidence can never serve as evidence of absence, we sacrifice falsifiability almost entirely!
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a fine phrase thrown around very liberally at times, but there is far more nuance to the whole ordeal than any such pretty platitude is fit to cover, and that's more or less the gist of my objection to it. Depending what is meant it can be accurate or inaccurate and as can be seen here, if insufficient care is taken to get all on the same page, plenty of superficial, semantic disagreement can be generated this way unnecessarily.

Gisteron wrote: If we say that an absence of evidence can never serve as evidence of absence, we sacrifice falsifiability almost entirely!

No actually we dont because any hypothesis that comes from an observation is actually a positive claim not a negative one. We make a prediction as to a cause and effect and then we test that prediction to see if is true or not true. We never predict a negative and then try to prove it false.

VixensVengeance wrote:

Gisteron wrote: If we say that an absence of evidence can never serve as evidence of absence, we sacrifice falsifiability almost entirely!

No actually we dont because any hypothesis that comes from an observation is actually a positive claim not a negative one.

First of all, oh, is that so? Says who? And also, this would be relevant how exactly?

We make a prediction as to a cause and effect and then we test that prediction to see if is true or not true.

False. I have no idea what "cause and effect" even means here. We perform experiments and compare their results to the predictions made by the model. What we test is the model, not predicitons.

We never predict a negative and then try to prove it false.

Correct. We never try to prove anything at all in science. I don't understand what's so difficult about this, and why I have to repeat myself again. Model M predicts that performing experiment E will yield results R. If R follows the performance of E at a statistically significant rate, that is considered evidence in favour of M. If the performance of E fails to yield R at a statistically significant rate, that is considered evidence against M. If it couldn't be, then there would be no such thing as falsification.





Oh, and by the way, yes, we do make negative predictions, too. Example: We will never find any matter travelling faster through a vacuum than light does. That's a prediction of relativity. Relativity is not verifiable, because we will never have tested all matter. But it will be falsified the day we find matter conflicting with that prediction, should there come such a day eventually.

Just where do you get all of this from anyway? How can you cram so many bogus things in just three lines of text? This is amazing!

Karl Popper is rolling in his grave

Gisteron wrote:
Just where do you get all of this from anyway? How can you cram so many bogus things in just three lines of text? This is amazing!

I wont engage you in your game of semantic nitpicking. I am correct and you know it. I'm sorry that you have become so incensed at your defeat that you must resort to such childish remarks. You refuted nothing I said and instead just stomped your foot, then went nuh uh and proceeded to deflect the conversation with red herrings. Get over yourself.

Oh, so when you said

VixensVengeance wrote: We never predict a negative...

and I responded with an example where a negative is being predicted, that didn't happen? Or was it one of those deflections/red herrings/semantic nitpicks? Or is my bafflement at the sheer amount of nonsense you speak so upsetting to you as to render addressing (or at any rate not completely ignoring) any actual point so thoroughly unappealing?

No. I do not know that you are correct. I presented an argument, with qualified terms and conditions, under which I find that you wouldn't be. You were the one who went "nuh uh" because apparently middle school level mathematics is oh so much to handle when matters come to logic and epistemic systems like court procedure or scientific research. This entire thread has been about my argument. I have yet to see yours.

I think a big part of my Jedi path through my life has been about exploring the edge of my experience and understanding - and given enough time of application, and establishment of trust, it reaches a point where I tend to classify that continued effort as trying to reach beyond the "reasonable expectation of evidence manifestation". It might be why I think I have used the term myself in the past here.

In short, working in the space where evidence is difficult has tended to be where the usefulness of using the Force as a working concept has found itself nested. I guess in a way it could be argued as 'a way' to define Sith and Jedi methods, being the former is radical; fast yet fiery, being different in justifying more self suffering (ie passion) since to me its a lot about perception and awareness more then some out of body phenomena. While the latter is more conservative; slower yet resolute.

A segway to Star Trek maxims perhaps :silly: