Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence

[Tammuz]

The phrase "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." appears in Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World from 1995. I don't know if he is the originator of that phrase or not, but he probably helped to popularize it. The phrase is very popular among religious believers and believers in other sorts of nonsense.

But it's clearly wrong. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence, it doesn't conclusively settle the issue all by its own. But it is certainly evidence of absence if the evidence could be expected to be there and is not.

- If we don't find any traces of the Israelites in the Sinai desert around the time of 1200 BCE, it is evidence that there were no massive nomadic wandering of Israelites as described in the Bible.

- If we don't find any trace of the earliest human evolution in Europe, it is evidence that the earliest evolution of humanity did not take place in Europe.

- If there is no trace of elves, apart from folklore, then that is evidence that elves don't exist.

 

[fast]

Something that supports a contention yet does not conclusively settle a contention is supporting evidence.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The phrase "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." appears in Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World from 1995. I don't know if he is the originator of that phrase or not, but he probably helped to popularize it. The phrase is very popular among religious believers and believers in other sorts of nonsense.

But it's clearly wrong. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence, it doesn't conclusively settle the issue all by its own. But it is certainly evidence of absence if the evidence could be expected to be there and is not.

- If we don't find any traces of the Israelites in the Sinai desert around the time of 1200 BCE, it is evidence that there were no massive nomadic wandering of Israelites as described in the Bible.

- If we don't find any trace of the earliest human evolution in Europe, it is evidence that the earliest evolution of humanity did not take place in Europe.

- If there is no trace of elves, apart from folklore, then that is evidence that elves don't exist.

Yes, evidently, we can only all implicitly agree here.

Show

At least, I don't have any evidence that we don't all agree.

Show

So, I guess, I do have evidence that we all agree.

Show

At least to the extent that the absence of evidence of a disagreement can be taken as implicit agreement.

Show

Seems rather evident now that I think about it.

EB.

 

[Tinker Grey]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens#Explanation

 

[Poppa Popobawa]

I agree with you, Tammuz. What you would expect to find, if something does not exist, is the absence of any evidence for it.

But it's possible that you can't find any evidence for something which does exist, maybe the evidence is out of your each, but
exists somewhere.

On the other hand, if something is purported to exist, and if the nature of its existence would lead one to expect to
find evidence in certain situations and ways, then a lack of that evidence, more strongly supports the conclusion that the contention
of the said something existing, is false.

 

[Treedbear]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens#Explanation

Right. In other words absense of evidence is evidence of absense when and only when presence must provide evidence. But in between the two versions it becomes a matter of conclusive evidence vs circumstantial evidence.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I still think absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

If someone disagrees then it's up to them to provide the evidence that the something in question does exist after all. I'm certainly not going to spend any time looking for dragons just to satisfy some pretty idiotic dictum.

It baffles me how people are happy to just repeat what Wiki says without any critical sense; and how Wiki repeats what some dude said.
EB

 

[Treedbear]

I still think absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

If someone disagrees then it's up to them to provide the evidence that the something in question does exist after all. I'm certainly not going to spend any time looking for dragons just to satisfy some pretty idiotic dictum.

It baffles me how people are happy to just repeat what Wiki says without any critical sense; and how Wiki repeats what some dude said.
EB

The thing is that absence of evidence must be presented as the evidence itself. It doesn't make sense to state it as a generic case. It's self contradictory and can easily be mischaracterized as simple ignorance. You open a refridgerator door and see there is no milk. The evidence is the act of looking inside and seeing nothing. Not the absense itself. I could ask you for the evidence there is no milk and you'd have to say that you looked and saw none. (Bracing for next insult to my intelligence.)

 

[Lion IRC]

Absence of evidence is absence of evidence.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The thing is that absence of evidence must be presented as the evidence itself. It doesn't make sense to state it as a generic case. It's self contradictory and can easily be mischaracterized as simple ignorance. You open a refridgerator door and see there is no milk. The evidence is the act of looking inside and seeing nothing. Not the absense itself. I could ask you for the evidence there is no milk and you'd have to say that you looked and saw none. (Bracing for next insult to my intelligence.)

That's why the justice process requires contradictory representation. Each side presents the evidence it has, which may indeed be as you say "I looked and there was nothing".

But the absence of evidence can only be taken as evidence of absence. That there is no evidence the guy murdered the victim is taken as evidence that the guy didn't murder the victim. It's a practical thing. You can't start to accuse people just in case. Absence of evidence the other 240 million Americans murdered John is good enough evidence they didn't murder him and should not be tried. So absence of evidence has to be admitted as your first evidence. You have to have due process but you also have to have a resolution and, in this case, there are only two possibilities, the guy did it or he didn't do it. And the system has to decide and justify its decision.

No guilty until proven otherwise. The word evidence just means "easily perceived or obvious". It's not necessarily anything like a piece of shrapnel or a trace of semen. It can be the glaringly obvious fact that there is no evidence. If it's evident that there's no evidence then this in itself is evident, and therefore it is evidence. You are intelligent and only guilty of starting off in your analysis from concepts that are not fundamental, such as the judicial vocabulary. It's legitimate to look at that but you have to have a critical sense of the fact that the vocabulary the judicial use is a narrowing of the general concept of evidence.

Obviously, looking inside the fridge and seeing nothing is better evidence than just looking at it from the outside and just assuming there's nothing inside. But again, that's why we get to argue about things in a confrontational way, because your evidence is not mine. From your vantage point, you've seen inside the fridge. I didn't open the fridge because I'm lazy. The God tribe will come and claim there's God inside the fridge and your evidence will be better than mine. But that doesn't make my evidence no evidence at all because i don't have to believe what a bunch of idiots claim because I have plenty other things to do. I will act rationally assuming there's no god inside the fridge even though I never looked inside.

And I'm quite sure you yourself don't waste your time to open the fridge every minute to check there's not God inside, because, you know, God may well decide not to be in there one minute and then to be there the next. And did you dismantle the fridge? We can always find better evidence, I agree, but better evidence is just that and that doesn't disqualify lesser evidence from being evidence. Minimal evidence is still evidence.

I rest my case.

I guess I did good this time controlling myself.

Show

No! Please don't look at the evidence.

Show

You really are a bloody idiot.

EB

 

[Wiploc]

Absence of evidence is evidence in some cases.

Take a tri-omni god: It has the power to prevent all suffering, it knows how to prevent all suffering, and it wants to prevent all suffering.

If that god existed, there would be no suffering. The fact that suffering exists is absolute proof that tri-omni gods don't exist.

But that lack of evidence says nothing against the existence of deist gods. They wouldn't be expected to leave evidence, and therefore the lack of evidence says nothing about whether they exist.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Absence of evidence is absence of evidence.

That's right, good marks all over.

And also, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Evident means "easily perceived or obvious". If it's obvious that there's no evidence, then this in itself is obvious and therefore is itself evidence and evidence of absence.

Once in a while, you guys should open a dictionary. That's where the better evidence of how words are used is. Not your private minds.

Your own behaviour here is good evidence that you yourself act on the absence of evidence, namely absence of evidence that there are definitions contradicting your sense of the word's meaning.

But keep going, you're on your way.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Absence of evidence is evidence in some cases.

Take a tri-omni god: It has the power to prevent all suffering, it knows how to prevent all suffering, and it wants to prevent all suffering.

If that god existed, there would be no suffering. The fact that suffering exists is absolute proof that tri-omni gods don't exist.

But that lack of evidence says nothing against the existence of deist gods. They wouldn't be expected to leave evidence, and therefore the lack of evidence says nothing about whether they exist.

But isn't the suffering we know exists positive evidence of the inexistence of any God capable and willing to prevent suffering?!

The fact that I don't see any invisible god isn't evidence that there isn't such a god.

So, I would rather say: Absence of evidence is NO evidence in some cases.

Still, in this particular case, no invisible thing is any omnipotent being. So, absence of evidence of any invisible god is evidence there is no such god.

So, I would rather say: Absence of evidence is NO evidence in some cases although not for invisible gods.
EB

 

[Worldtraveller]

Absence of evidence is evidence in some cases.

Take a tri-omni god: It has the power to prevent all suffering, it knows how to prevent all suffering, and it wants to prevent all suffering.

If that god existed, there would be no suffering. The fact that suffering exists is absolute proof that tri-omni gods don't exist.

But that lack of evidence says nothing against the existence of deist gods. They wouldn't be expected to leave evidence, and therefore the lack of evidence says nothing about whether they exist.

But isn't the suffering we know exists positive evidence of the inexistence of any God capable and willing to prevent suffering?!

The fact that I don't see any invisible god isn't evidence that there isn't such a god.

So, I would rather say: Absence of evidence is NO evidence in some cases.

Still, in this particular case, no invisible thing is any omnipotent being. So, absence of evidence of any invisible god is evidence there is no such god.

So, I would rather say: Absence of evidence is NO evidence in some cases although not for invisible gods.
EB

You can make this argument, but it lacks any real practicality. It's the invisible dragon in my garage argument. Sure, it might be there, you can believe it's there all you want, but the utter lack of any kind of evidence means that even if it does "exist" in some way, it doesn't interact with the known, measurable world, so what's the point?

It's actually similar to deism. They don't really make any claims about what the universe/gods want, that they influence the world/universe, so who gives a fuck if they want to believe it.

The reason the abrahamic religions get so much pushback is purely a reaction to their pushiness and insistence that others follow their beliefs. If they all just followed their own beliefs and left the sensible people alone, forums like this probably wouldn't exist.

 

[Treedbear]

...
So, I would rather say: Absence of evidence is NO evidence in some cases although not for invisible gods.
EB

Sounds like equivocation to me but I'll take it.

 

[steve_bank]

Absence makes the heart grow fonder. Therefore fondness' is evidence of absence.

 

[Lion IRC]

Absence of evidence is absence of evidence.

That's right, good marks all over.

And also, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Evident means "easily perceived or obvious". If it's obvious that there's no evidence, then this in itself is obvious and therefore is itself evidence and evidence of absence.

Once in a while, you guys should open a dictionary. That's where the better evidence of how words are used is. Not your private minds.

Your own behaviour here is good evidence that you yourself act on the absence of evidence, namely absence of evidence that there are definitions contradicting your sense of the word's meaning.

But keep going, you're on your way.
EB

Why am I not surprised you're defending the self-contradictory, the self-refuting,
and the oxymoronic.
Ever heard of the law of excluded middle?
Evidence = evidence
Not evidence = not evidence

 

[Lion IRC]

This guy is so bad at logic that I could probably say;
"The absence of evidence that God doesn't exist is evidence that He DOES exist"
...and get away with it

 

[Kharakov]

Back to the point:

If someone knows exactly where to look for a gram of material, and it is not there, it is evidence of its absence.

If someone knows where an employee is supposed to be working, and they are not there, it is evidence of their absence.

If someone speaks to a God in their prayers, and nobody else in the universe can detect the God's response, and the person says there was an external response.. it is evidence of the absence of their God in the external universe.

It is not evidence of the complete absence of their brain's God. It just means their brain's God isn't the God of the universe, despite them going full on Beautiful Mind in their interactions with their brain's God.

Like I assume Lion experiences. Which I experience when I'm on tons of drugs to simulate being a believer. It's pretty fun. But I come down.... and act rationally, and non-exploitatively. Like Lion probably does all the time, when they aren't enjoying the benefits of forcing the poor to do the majority of the labor for a minor amount of returns... because God gave stuff to them, it wasn't generated by the labor of many.

 

[Treedbear]

The thing is that absence of evidence must be presented as the evidence itself. It doesn't make sense to state it as a generic case. It's self contradictory and can easily be mischaracterized as simple ignorance. You open a refridgerator door and see there is no milk. The evidence is the act of looking inside and seeing nothing. Not the absense itself. I could ask you for the evidence there is no milk and you'd have to say that you looked and saw none. (Bracing for next insult to my intelligence.)

That's why the justice process requires contradictory representation. Each side presents the evidence it has, which may indeed be as you say "I looked and there was nothing".

But the absence of evidence can only be taken as evidence of absence. That there is no evidence the guy murdered the victim is taken as evidence that the guy didn't murder the victim.

No it's not. It's taken as a lack of evidence that the guy murdered the victim.

It's a practical thing. You can't start to accuse people just in case. Absence of evidence the other 240 million Americans murdered John is good enough evidence they didn't murder him and should not be tried. So absence of evidence has to be admitted as your first evidence. You have to have due process but you also have to have a resolution and, in this case, there are only two possibilities, the guy did it or he didn't do it. And the system has to decide and justify its decision.

You're wrong about that. It's why someone is innocent until proven guilty. No evidence needs to be presented.

No guilty until proven otherwise. The word evidence just means "easily perceived or obvious".

The perception part is essential as part of the evidence. The obvious part is obviously specious and insufficient for justice.

It's not necessarily anything like a piece of shrapnel or a trace of semen. It can be the glaringly obvious fact that there is no evidence. If it's evident that there's no evidence then this in itself is evident, and therefore it is evidence. You are intelligent and only guilty of starting off in your analysis from concepts that are not fundamental, such as the judicial vocabulary. It's legitimate to look at that but you have to have a critical sense of the fact that the vocabulary the judicial use is a narrowing of the general concept of evidence.

The lack of evidence doesn't serve as proof of his innocence. It allows him to maintain his innocence in the eyes of the law. He might be found innocent and then afterwards admit guilt. In the US judicial system the court still considers him innocent.

Obviously, looking inside the fridge and seeing nothing is better evidence than just looking at it from the outside and just assuming there's nothing inside. But again, that's why we get to argue about things in a confrontational way, because your evidence is not mine. From your vantage point, you've seen inside the fridge. I didn't open the fridge because I'm lazy. The God tribe will come and claim there's God inside the fridge and your evidence will be better than mine. But that doesn't make my evidence no evidence at all because i don't have to believe what a bunch of idiots claim because I have plenty other things to do. I will act rationally assuming there's no god inside the fridge even though I never looked inside. ...

You should look inside the fridge.