Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence

[fromderinside]

Nice.

It is incumbent on those studying p to go forward with studies whether and how p or not p based on the understanding already on record. Induction is so wunnerful.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

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

More pointless semantics games. No one has presented a formal, logical syllogism, so, no, you’re quite wrong; there is no formal “logical implication” at play here simply because I used the term “implies,” but even if there were, it STILL follows precisely what I argued. E.g., if it is planted, then no, it cannot be considered evidence.

In your example, however, you are not making a truth claim; you are making a subjective generalization. Unless by “dumb” you mean “temporarily unable or unwilling to speak,” because that’s what the word “dumb” actually means. It is not a synonym for “stupid” or “of low intelligence” or the like, unless you are speaking colloquially.

So if that’s what you mean—“blacks are temporarily unable or unwilling to speak”—then you are making a positive truth claim, which in turn shoulders a burden of proof and does not suggest or logically imply racism necessarily.

If, otoh, you mean “blacks are stupid” then you have made a subjective generalization that logically implies racism on your part necessarily, because it is subjective and a generalization. Iow, there can be no other rationale other than racism on your part for making the generalized statement “blacks are stupid.”

 

[fast]

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

Sounds good

 

[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.

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.

OK
In that case, if there was no God, I would expect to see evidence of His non-existence.
Where is all this missing evidence that God doesn't exist?
All I have ever seen is evidence that He does exist.

The absence of evidence that God doesn't exist is, itself, evidence FOR the existence of God.
QED.

Atheists! Take up your burden of proof.

 

[steve_bank]

Absence of absence is presence.

 

[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.

OK
In that case, if there was no God, I would expect to see evidence of His non-existence. Where is all this missing evidence that God doesn't exist?

It doesn't work like that. People have believed in all sorts of things that have no evidence for their existence, the Greek gods were once believed to be real gods, it was believed that spirits inhabited the natural world, the spirit of the air, the water, the land, etc.

There is no evidence that these things do not exist. The reason why these beliefs dropped away is because there is no evidence for their existence and that there are other explanations for wind and lighting and so on.

The same applies to the Universe at large. There is no evidence for the existence of a Creator of the Universe, but there are other explanations, other possibilities that better relate to the evidence we have, red shift, cosmic background radiation, long periods of astro evolution, geology, evolution of species, etc

All I have ever seen is evidence that He does exist.

If that's the case, you should be able to show me some of that evidence?

The absence of evidence that God doesn't exist is, itself, evidence FOR the existence of God.

What if you applied that line of reasoning to invisible goblins, gnomes and nature spirits?

Atheists! Take up your burden of proof.

Absence of evidence of existence is sufficient to exclude a conviction in existence. You do it all the time.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.)

Treedbear is correct. The evidence of absence is the failed search for evidence of the presence of the thing, rather than just the mere absence of evidence in the general abstract.

Is the fact that a blind person cannot see what is in front of them evidence that the thing is not there, or evidence that the thing disappears when no one else is there to see it? Of course not. The evidence of absence and its strength are directly dependent upon the nature, quality, and thoroughness of the empirical search for the thing, and whether reasonable theories of the thing predict that such a search would likely yield evidence if the thing did exist. This is why we can conclude that fairies, dragons, or any god that interacts with its creation do not exist. Because some solid evidence of such things would have emerged by now, given the billions of sensory systems on the planet that could observe them.

 

[Learner]

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, is valid because it CAN be applied to some scenarios but not always which is not what matters with the validity.

It certainly can work in a logical sense for example if I were to say: Evidently no indication of the postman coming by today, because there were no letters delivered ... being the same as... No letters in the mail is evidence that the postman was absent.
( I know its simplistic , my limitations I'm afraid lol , but we may just be overthinking sometimes)

 

[Lion IRC]

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, is valid because it CAN be applied to some scenarios but not always which is not what matters with the validity.

It certainly can work in a logical sense for example if I were to say: Evidently no indication of the postman coming by today, because there were no letters delivered ... being the same as... No letters in the mail is evidence that the postman was absent.
( I know its simplistic , my limitations I'm afraid lol , but we may just be overthinking sometimes)

I can work with this.
The Israelites felt the absence of evidence of God during the Babylonian captivity.

 

[Learner]

I can work with this.
The Israelites felt the absence of evidence of God during the Babylonian captivity.

And I can use this myself.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

In that case, if there was no God, I would expect to see evidence of His non-existence.

Even you must know that is patently absurd.

Where is all this missing evidence that God doesn't exist?

There could be no “missing” evidence for something that does not exist. There would be no evidence period for something that does not exist. But that is not the opposite condition of the OP. No one is asking “where is all this missing evidence that Bigfoot does not exist?”

All I have ever seen is evidence that He does exist.

No, you’ve read stories and perhaps had inexplicable (to you) experiences and seen various things in nature that you attribute to your concept of a god, but just like the gum wrapper in the crime scene, unless and until you can make a cogent argument as to why the gum wrapper is not just a gum wrapper, you haven’t.

The absence of evidence that God doesn't exist is, itself, evidence FOR the existence of God.
QED.

Do you know what “QED” stands for? You don’t get there by using a double negative. You’ve just effectively stated “the evidence that God exists is itself evidence for the existence of God.” Well, no shit. So what is that evidence?

Atheists! Take up your burden of proof.

Even if there were such a burden, it still would not alleviate your own burden.

 

[Treedbear]

...

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.
...

Looking into this further ...
I looked up the definition of absence:

1 : a state or condition in which something expected, wanted, or looked for is not present or does not exist ...
2 : a failure to be present at a usual or expected place ...

So I have to admit what I didn't realize is that "absence of evidence" implies that some form of investigation did indeed take place and therefore there is some manner of supporting evidence. It was no good to try to substitute "lack of evidence" or reduce it to simply a lack of knowledge or ignorance. I was wrong in that, and it was my main point of concern. My response to Wiploc about "the dog that did not bark" was particularly off. So thanks for putting up with my ignorance.

The other implication though is that the conclusion "is evidence of absence" the question of the presence or existence of the subject is likewise restricted to whatever context is implied. So if the implications of the word are not well defined on both sides of the equation the phrase becomes trite and artificial. Such as in the case when looking for milk in the fridge and returning with evidence of none, when it was there in the OJ container all along. The phrase is even less helpful when discussing the existence of a god, for instance, when the definition tends to change to suit the circumstance. So personally I'll continue to avoid the phrase and to treat it with suspicion when used in an argument.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Looking into this further ...
I looked up the definition of absence:

1 : a state or condition in which something expected, wanted, or looked for is not present or does not exist ...
2 : a failure to be present at a usual or expected place ...

So I have to admit what I didn't realize is that "absence of evidence" implies that some form of investigation did indeed take place and therefore there is some manner of supporting evidence. It was no good to try to substitute "lack of evidence" or reduce it to simply a lack of knowledge or ignorance. I was wrong in that, and it was my main point of concern. My response to Wiploc about "the dog that did not bark" was particularly off. So thanks for putting up with my ignorance.

Good, that rekindles a bit my faith in mankind, which has gotten so very, very, very low these last few years.

The other implication though is that the conclusion "is evidence of absence" the question of the presence or existence of the subject is likewise restricted to whatever context is implied. So if the implications of the word are not well defined on both sides of the equation the phrase becomes trite and artificial. Such as in the case when looking for milk in the fridge and returning with evidence of none, when it was there in the OJ container all along. The phrase is even less helpful when discussing the existence of a god, for instance, when the definition tends to change to suit the circumstance. So personally I'll continue to avoid the phrase and to treat it with suspicion when used in an argument.

Evidence is only as good as what it is. So, mere mention that there is evidence is pretty low on the scale of goodness. Having a cursory look is low-level compared to looking thoroughly. So, I'm not sure where you see evidence of a problem. In a judiciary process, you have confrontation between the prosecution and the defence, each trying to find better evidence than the other. But inferior evidence is still evidence. So, saying God exists because God is the reality we see all around us is evidence, but pretty near epsilon.

Basically, it means we can't claim to know that God doesn't exist. Yes but, me, I don't need any believer to help me get to this conclusion. However, a dogmatic, hardcore materialist can only squirm because he can't prove that the epsilon is zero. Which will lead him to argue that the only evidence there is scientific evidence, which is just a Big Brotherly way to rewrite history and redefining even our most ordinary notions, resulting in confused ideological conflicts within society.

So, maybe you could try to articulate your idea here a little bit more, just so I can have more evidence of what your view is.
EB