Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence

[fast]

Nice!

Very nice!

And the presentation is so well put that it appears to highlight an absurdity to my position.

I will respond later, but for now, nice.

 

[fast]

A teacher gives out an assignment instructing each of her students to bring a cup of rice to class. 18 of her 20 students comply. One student (randy) brought a cup but it contained only one grain of rice. The other student (Charles) brought a cup but it contained corn. 18 followed instructions but 19 brought rice.

You can put randy and Charles in the same category as having not followed instructions, but don’t put randy in the category of not bringing rice.

You are now tasked with weighing the rice. The weight of what Charles brought will have NO effect.

Same thing with non evidence. If you have 20 things before you and only 19 of those things are evidence, what isn’t evidence will have NO bearing in your analysis.

The feet and prints are evidence, just like what randy brought was in fact rice, so it will have weight in the analysis.

The evidence that your suspect committed the crime is overwhelmed by all the evidence that she didn’t. That should clearly bare out in the analysis of the evidence, so much so that I wouldn’t have approached her to inform her of what might be trivially true anyway, that everyone is a suspect in that she might (not may) have committed the crime.

 

[Wiploc]

The evidence that your suspect committed the crime is overwhelmed by all the evidence that she didn’t. That should clearly bare out in the analysis of the evidence, so much so that I wouldn’t have approached her to inform her of what might be trivially true anyway, that everyone is a suspect in that she might (not may) have committed the crime.

If someone says there is no evidence that she committed the crime, that's a fair claim. It isn't wrong or incoherent. It's not a misrepresentation.

If a fair reading of the available evidence doesn't indicate that there is more reason to believe gods do exist than that they don't, then it is fair to say that there is no evidence for the existence of gods.

This may not be the only possible way to use the word "evidence," but it isn't unfair or dishonest.

 

[fast]

If someone says there is no evidence that she committed the crime, that's a fair claim. It isn't wrong or incoherent. It's not a misrepresentation.

If there was nothing presented to support she committed the crime, sure, but if it’s presented, it is, and when it’s analyzed, it’s evidence that’s being analyzed.

People innocently say factually incorrect things all the time. For instance, “people are innocent until proven guilty.” They don’t always intend to misrepresent, and in those cases, those of us in the know can step forward and help them out. For example, we can fill in the gap for what was spoken in shorthand. In law, people are PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty.

In the case discussing evidence, we can say “there is no [insert appropriate adjective] evidence.”

But, let’s say I have it all wrong. Is everything merely purportedly evidence?

Let’s try this. Let’s say an innocent man is accused, charged, convicted, and sentenced to 25 years to life for murder. It’s a lengthy trial with lots of physical items. He is released after 20 years when the actual killer is found. Does this mean he is factually correct when he gets out and starts complaining about how no one ever even looked at the evidence? No one analyzed the evidence, only what they MISTAKINGLY THOUGHT was evidence?

This brings us to the faulty notion that there can be no evidence against an innocent man.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

If something is evidence, we need to own up to it, even if it’s extremely weak. That being said, weak evidence ought not be regarded as non-evidence. Simply own up to the fact that evidence is evidence irrespective of its strength.

So you are, in fact, arguing for a false equivalence.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

If there was nothing presented to support she committed the crime, sure, but if it’s presented, it is, and when it’s analyzed, it’s evidence that’s being analyzed.

Categorically false. "Evidence" is not a catch-all term, regardless of how it may be used colloquially. What is being analyzed is not "evidence." What is being analyzed is information of various types for the purposes of determining whether or not it is evidence that proves someone committed a crime.

If I'm a cop and I pick up a chewing gum wrapper at a crime scene, that's not "evidence" in and of itself of a crime. It's potential evidence, perhaps, but until such time as it has been analyzed and a positive correlation can be found to the crime, it is not "evidence" strong or weak. It is just a chewing gum wrapper.

If there is DNA that matches the suspect and/or does not match the dead person in the room found on the wrapper, then (and only then) does its category change from gum wrapper to "evidence of a crime." Without a direct correlation to the crime, it is not "evidence."

 

[Wiploc]

This brings us to the faulty notion that there can be no evidence against an innocent man.

That's not my position. There can be evidence pointing to the guilt of innocent people.

But I don't know of any evidence pointing to the existence of gods.

 

[fast]

But I don't know of any evidence pointing to the existence of gods.

Testimonial.

That we cannot deduce from the testimony that the facts spoken are inarguably true ... .

 

[fast]

If there was nothing presented to support she committed the crime, sure, but if it’s presented, it is, and when it’s analyzed, it’s evidence that’s being analyzed.

Categorically false. "Evidence" is not a catch-all term, regardless of how it may be used colloquially. What is being analyzed is not "evidence." What is being analyzed is information of various types for the purposes of determining whether or not it is evidence that proves someone committed a crime.

If I'm a cop and I pick up a chewing gum wrapper at a crime scene, that's not "evidence" in and of itself of a crime. It's potential evidence, perhaps, but until such time as it has been analyzed and a positive correlation can be found to the crime, it is not "evidence" strong or weak. It is just a chewing gum wrapper.

If there is DNA that matches the suspect and/or does not match the dead person in the room found on the wrapper, then (and only then) does its category change from gum wrapper to "evidence of a crime." Without a direct correlation to the crime, it is not "evidence."

Is the notion of planting evidence also so colloquial that what’s planted is not evidence?

 

[Lion IRC]

The absence of evidence - where evidence should be found - is evidence for absence.

This nuance isn't really the same as the unqualified "no evidence for X therefore Y" position we see in the Op. And it does help to avoid the principium tertii exclusi and/or the argument from silence fallacy.

But I like it because it reminds me of an argument which atheists hate. Viz;

The existence of hunger is evidence that a thing called food exists. Hunger is not wishful thinking.
Thirst, therefore water.
God-shaped hole in our heart.
Etc etc.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Is the notion of planting evidence also so colloquial that what’s planted is not evidence?

If it is planted, then no, it can not be evidence. It is--once again--someone mistaking something to be evidence when in fact it is not. This is not a proposition from Wittgenstein.

"Evidence" is conditional. A gum wrapper in and of itself is not evidence unless the gum wrapper can be tied directly to a crime (i.e., it has the suspect's DNA on it).

No police officer picks up a gum wrapper and says, "Ah ha! This is evidence in the sense that it's been concluded to be evidence of a crime!" They would only at best consider it potential evidence until it has been thoroughly examined, but again, that's semantics. It doesn't become substantive until such time as the investigation of it is complete and concrete conclusions can be drawn.

Iow, the determination that something is evidence of a crime (or evidence of an assertion; or evidence of a truth claim) is whether or not that something can be substantively tied to the conditions of the crime (or assertion or truth claim). Hence the question, does the evidence support the assertion?

If it doesn't, then there is no point is labeling it "evidence" (strong or weak). It's just not evidence. It's a gum wrapper.

 

[fast]

Is the notion of planting evidence also so colloquial that what’s planted is not evidence?

If it is planted, then no, it can not be evidence. It is--once again--someone mistaking something to be evidence when in fact it is not. This is not a proposition from Wittgenstein.

"Evidence" is conditional. A gum wrapper in and of itself is not evidence unless the gum wrapper can be tied directly to a crime (i.e., it has the suspect's DNA on it).

No police officer picks up a gum wrapper and says, "Ah ha! This is evidence in the sense that it's been concluded to be evidence of a crime!" They would only at best consider it potential evidence until it has been thoroughly examined, but again, that's semantics. It doesn't become substantive until such time as the investigation of it is complete and concrete conclusions can be drawn.

Iow, the determination that something is evidence of a crime (or evidence of an assertion; or evidence of a truth claim) is whether or not that something can be substantively tied to the conditions of the crime (or assertion or truth claim). Hence the question, does the evidence support the assertion?

If it doesn't, then there is no point is labeling it "evidence" (strong or weak). It's just not evidence. It's a gum wrapper.

Your view reminds me of an issue often confronted when discussing knowledge. If a person has very good reason to believe they have knowledge and then claims to have knowledge, that person upon later learning that what is believed is not true, they will rightly retract their claim of knowledge and admit they were mistaken and did not in fact have knowledge at all.

If you (that would be you according to your view) hold that if you have good reason to think an item is evidence, you will contend that you were mistaken upon learning the item does not guarantee what you thought it did. You would thus retract labeling what you thought as evidence as not being evidence at all.

I, on the other hand, do not hold that evidence of truth implies truth. Knowledge of truth does, but evidence of truth (in my view) does not.

I believe your view of “support” is skewed and does not hold the implication you think it does.

 

[Wiploc]

But I don't know of any evidence pointing to the existence of gods.

Testimonial.

That we cannot deduce from the testimony that the facts spoken are inarguably true ... .

Once we consider the multivarious conflicting testimonies, all we can legitimately conclude is that testimony isn't trustworthy.

 

[DBT]

The absence of evidence - where evidence should be found - is evidence for absence.

This nuance isn't really the same as the unqualified "no evidence for X therefore Y" position we see in the Op. And it does help to avoid the principium tertii exclusi and/or the argument from silence fallacy.

But I like it because it reminds me of an argument which atheists hate. Viz;

The existence of hunger is evidence that a thing called food exists. Hunger is not wishful thinking.
Thirst, therefore water.
God-shaped hole in our heart.
Etc etc.

You expect to find a carton of milk in your fridge, but upon opening your fridge door you see no carton of milk where a carton should have been, you search throughout the fridge (it may have been misplaced), but find no milk in your fridge.

There is no evidence of Milk in your fridge.

Absence of evidence where evidence should be found is evidence of absence.

 

[Lion IRC]

Yes, you said that already.
But you're presuming the desired conclusion to your own argument.
You presume what evidence ought to look like, where it ought to be found yet you simultaneously reject every other person''s evidence.

They say here it is and you say that's not where you expect the evidence.

They say it's evidence for God and you say that's not the evidence is expected to look like.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Is the notion of planting evidence also so colloquial that what’s planted is not evidence?

If it is planted, then no, it can not be evidence. It is--once again--someone mistaking something to be evidence when in fact it is not. This is not a proposition from Wittgenstein.

"Evidence" is conditional. A gum wrapper in and of itself is not evidence unless the gum wrapper can be tied directly to a crime (i.e., it has the suspect's DNA on it).

No police officer picks up a gum wrapper and says, "Ah ha! This is evidence in the sense that it's been concluded to be evidence of a crime!" They would only at best consider it potential evidence until it has been thoroughly examined, but again, that's semantics. It doesn't become substantive until such time as the investigation of it is complete and concrete conclusions can be drawn.

Iow, the determination that something is evidence of a crime (or evidence of an assertion; or evidence of a truth claim) is whether or not that something can be substantively tied to the conditions of the crime (or assertion or truth claim). Hence the question, does the evidence support the assertion?

If it doesn't, then there is no point is labeling it "evidence" (strong or weak). It's just not evidence. It's a gum wrapper.

Your view reminds me of an issue often confronted when discussing knowledge.

Fascinating. Now please actually address what I wrote instead of this pointless evasion.

If you (that would be you according to your view) hold that if you have good reason to think an item is evidence, you will contend that you were mistaken upon learning the item does not guarantee what you thought it did. You would thus retract labeling what you thought as evidence as not being evidence at all.

More word salad.

I, on the other hand, do not hold that evidence of truth implies truth.

Then you’re an idiot, because the entire purpose of calling something “evidence” is that, at the very least, it implies truth.

I believe your view of “support” is skewed and does not hold the implication you think it does.

See my previous sentence.

 

[fast]

It suggests truth. “Implies” is a technical term.

If I say “blacks are dumb” that suggests racism, but the sentence lacks logical implication, so saying “blacks are dumb” does not imply racism —despite the derogatory nature of the statement.

 

[DBT]

Yes, you said that already.
But you're presuming the desired conclusion to your own argument.
You presume what evidence ought to look like, where it ought to be found yet you simultaneously reject every other person''s evidence.

They say here it is and you say that's not where you expect the evidence.

They say it's evidence for God and you say that's not the evidence is expected to look like.

I'm not presuming anything. It has nothing to do with me personally or what I may or may not presume.

It is simply how the world works.

In any instance where evidence for the presence or occurrence of something is not found, where it should be found, that is the instance that the absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence.

You can argue that evidence for the existence of God is hidden, therefore this is not a matter of absence of evidence, but this is a slightly different issue.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Yes, here someone did:

I still think absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

It's self contradictory

...

I wasn't saying the evidence had to be undeniably guaranteed. I'm saying that you're claiming there is in fact evidence, and that it's in the form of the lack of evidence. If you don't see how that's a logical contradiction I give up.

It's indeed an interesting question and it has some interesting connection to logic and to formal logic, but, to the extent that there is a problem, it is not in itself a problem of logic or of formal logic.

However, although I could explain in details, I won't, because, essentially, my reasoning here about evidence is a reasoning we all do. So, you do it to. So, your asking me to justify something you do is a bit too much.

So, here is you doing it:

You'll need to explain how you can deduce that there is a lack of evidence without in the process presenting some kind of supporting evidence.

I take this to mean that you think that we can have evidence where there is no evidence, and this neatly undercuts your suggestion that I'm being illogical with my claim about evidence.

Unless you want to say that you are yourself illogical.

Still, you may be right. So, go on, prove to the majority of us here that it is illogical to claim that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Me, just by reading this, I can see there's nothing illogical. However, it's true that it's not a formal argument, so I might be wrong. As most people here. So, go on, it is more important to prove the majority wrong than just prove Speakpigeon is illogical. And you would definitely learn something in the process.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Your view reminds me of an issue often confronted when discussing knowledge. If a person has very good reason to believe they have knowledge and then claims to have knowledge, that person upon later learning that what is believed is not true, they will rightly retract their claim of knowledge and admit they were mistaken and did not in fact have knowledge at all.

Exactly. See, we agree on that.

However, absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence.

And, if we think we have evidence that p and later we find better evidence that not p, we don't say that our initial evidence of p was no evidence at all after all.

And we even still accept the initial evidence as evidence that p, despite the fact that we now have better evidence that not p.

Can you agree on that?

Hey, we're doing good here!
EB