Author
|
Topic: Is absence of evidence evidenc o' absence???? Crashfrog, Percy, Ludo
|
LudoRephaim
Member (Idle past 5110 days) Posts: 651 From: Jareth's labyrinth Joined: 03-12-2006
|
|
Message 1 of 8 (409400)
07-09-2007 10:29 AM
|
|
|
A while back on a thread about Bigfoot, there was a particular difference of opinion between Percy and Crash not exactly about bigfoot, but about whether absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Percy brought it up first, saying that it is not, while Crash tried to prove the opposite using an analogy. I propose that on the great debate forum that Crashfrog and Percy "duke it out" to see whether absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I would also like to participate myself in this debate, to see if Crash's arguments can stand against two different views on this. If Crash doesn't want to debate two people with a different view by himself, then this debate can be just between Percy and crash. I REALLY want to see crash and Percy reason with each other on this, whethr I am participating or not. In the debate anyone can use analogies, scientific evidence, historical evidence, logical equations, and anything else to try to prove one's point. If Crash and Percy dont want to join, Then one person for Crash's position can join and it will then be one on one (percy or myself and other person). But either way I want those for "Absence o' evidence is evidence o'absence! " to bring forth their case for why it is so, and then replies to it shalt follow. Edited by LudoRephaim, : No reason given.
"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4
Replies to this message: | | Message 2 by Admin, posted 07-09-2007 10:53 AM | | LudoRephaim has replied | | Message 6 by AdminPhat, posted 07-10-2007 1:46 PM | | LudoRephaim has replied |
|
Admin
Director Posts: 13035 From: EvC Forum Joined: 06-14-2002 Member Rating: 2.0
|
I doubt there's any real disagreement here, the real issue is probably just one of terminology. The "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" statement is cute but imprecise. A more accurate way of saying this might be, "Absence of evidence does not absolutely rule out the possibility," thereby taking into account the property of tentativity. Hopefully that suffices, but if not then provide links to the relevant messages in the other thread and I'll take a look.
-- | Percy | | EvC Forum Director |
This message is a reply to: | | Message 1 by LudoRephaim, posted 07-09-2007 10:29 AM | | LudoRephaim has replied |
|
LudoRephaim
Member (Idle past 5110 days) Posts: 651 From: Jareth's labyrinth Joined: 03-12-2006
|
|
Message 3 of 8 (409406)
07-09-2007 10:56 AM
|
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin 07-09-2007 10:53 AM
|
|
That is a good definition; There is also a logical fallacy that names the argument, "appeal to Ignorance".
"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4
This message is a reply to: | | Message 2 by Admin, posted 07-09-2007 10:53 AM | | Admin has not replied |
|
LudoRephaim
Member (Idle past 5110 days) Posts: 651 From: Jareth's labyrinth Joined: 03-12-2006
|
|
Message 4 of 8 (409586)
07-10-2007 10:50 AM
|
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin 07-09-2007 10:53 AM
|
|
BTW: I dont know how to link up one thread to another, but the difference of opinion is in message 158 of Nuggin's Bigfoot thread. Crashfrog tried to prove through argument alone that if there is no evidence for something, then it doesn't exist.
"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4
This message is a reply to: | | Message 2 by Admin, posted 07-09-2007 10:53 AM | | Admin has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 5 by Admin, posted 07-10-2007 11:16 AM | | LudoRephaim has not replied |
|
Admin
Director Posts: 13035 From: EvC Forum Joined: 06-14-2002 Member Rating: 2.0
|
The forum number, thread number and message number are available from the Address box of your browser. Then you just say [msg=-14,-1887,-158]. If you leave out the minus signs it will include the forum name, the thread title and the message subtitle. If you just want to refer to the thread say [thread=-14,-1887]. This information is all availabe on the dBCode Help Page
-- | Percy | | EvC Forum Director |
This message is a reply to: | | Message 4 by LudoRephaim, posted 07-10-2007 10:50 AM | | LudoRephaim has not replied |
|
AdminPhat
Inactive Member
|
Topic Revision?
I think that I have tracked down a source attributed to Crashfrog here where he states:
Crashfrog writes: There's an astounding lack of evidence for Bigfoot, and absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I wouldn't say that I'm particularly "anti-Bigfoot", but I'm anti-nonsense, and this pretty much seems like nonsense. In message 152 Percy states that: Percy writes: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and those arguing scientifically have to remember this rule. What can be done scientifically is to point out the paucity of evidence, and to put it in context by listing all the other speculated phenomena which have comparable amounts of evidence, e.g., UFO's, alien abductions, ghosts, ESP, pyramid power, magnetic bracelets, homeopathy, therapeutic touch, assisted communication, and so forth. Crashfrog responds in Message #158 by saying: Crashfrog writes: But that is no rule - absence of evidence is evidence of absence, that's well-known. Every reasonable person considers absence of evidence to be evidence of absence. How else would you detect absence except by an absence of evidence? "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" is the counter-reasonable nonsense people say when they're trying to defend the existence of something they don't have any evidence for, and it's surprising to see someone as intelligent as yourself fall for it. It's a clearly transparent dodge. What is your basic philosophy in a nutshell, Ludo? Would this debate be a Faith/Belief issue or would it fall under the disciplines of scientific inquiry? Edited by AdminPhat, : clarification
This message is a reply to: | | Message 1 by LudoRephaim, posted 07-09-2007 10:29 AM | | LudoRephaim has replied |
|
LudoRephaim
Member (Idle past 5110 days) Posts: 651 From: Jareth's labyrinth Joined: 03-12-2006
|
|
Message 7 of 8 (409614)
07-10-2007 2:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by AdminPhat 07-10-2007 1:46 PM
|
|
Re: Topic Revision?
Both belief/faith and scientific, adding a little logic (if any...) to the mixture. I just want to hear the case for Crash's thinking on "absence 0 evidence is evidence 0 absence" (pink yet invisible unicorns and the like can come up when reffering to God or Bigfoot or anything of belief, inquiry or science). My position is that absence of evidence in and of it'self is not evidence of absence. You also need evidence THAT something doesn't exist. For example, If Crash says there is no evidence that Bigfoot is real, he could also state any type of evidence that shows that there is not enough edible food for such an ape to exist, that it would have trouble in competing with Grizzlies or black bears or wolves, or the biomechanics of such an upright being being so far out as to being impossible (though I am by no means a skeptic whe reffering to Bigfoot, and these objections to bigfeet are IMHO not convincing. Just a Using 'em for example) That would be my view on that. And just saying "absence evidence/evidence absence" is not only an excuse for lazy thinking and lazy inquiry (not to mention subclass imagination) but also is totally bad logic and proven wrong on more than one occasion. Occam's Razor has been abused in this fashion by some (I'll give an example if you want later.) That's my ideas on the subjectamundo Edited by LudoRephaim, : No reason given. Edited by LudoRephaim, : No reason given. Edited by LudoRephaim, : No reason given.
"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4
This message is a reply to: | | Message 6 by AdminPhat, posted 07-10-2007 1:46 PM | | AdminPhat has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 8 by AdminPhat, posted 07-10-2007 2:21 PM | | LudoRephaim has not replied |
|
AdminPhat
Inactive Member
|
Does anyone want a debate?
Ludo has stated his position and I now open the topic up for anyone who wishes to debate Ludo on this particular subject. Any takers?
This message is a reply to: | | Message 7 by LudoRephaim, posted 07-10-2007 2:14 PM | | LudoRephaim has not replied |
|