Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence

[fast]

Something to be mindful of is to resist the temptation to unreasonably raise the standard for what it even means to say of something that it’s evidence at all. One can have evidence and there be no guarantee akin to the guarantee as found in sound deductive arguments.

If your fingerprints are on a glass found at a crime scene, then like it or not, that’s evidence you were at a crime scene because it can be used to SUPPORT the contention you were at the crime scene. It need not guarantee what is purported—it merely needs to SUPPORT it.

Suppose the evidence was planted and you can prove that. Countervailing evidence minimizes its strength.

One step further: your fingerprints on the glass is strong evidence you handled the glass, but the fact it’s possible to surreptitiously plant the fingerprints of others onto foreign objects (using simple tools and some know-how) thereby negating the guarantee that the presence of the prints came from your handling of the glass does not (does not, I say) alter the “evidence” as being a proper description.

Many people have the faulty notion that for something to in fact be evidence of something there must be an inextricable link whereby something can’t be evidence for something that is not the case. What is true is that there can be evidence of something and there be no truth to that something. For instance, if you have never killed anyone, it’s still plausible for there to be evidence that you have. Saying “it’s not evidence for that but rather evidence for something else” is appealing, but that distorts what it means to say of something that it’s evidence.

If you claim that a huge bomb exploded over Central Park in New York City, the absence of any evidence that one did explode can be used to support the contention that one didn’t. We cannot guarantee that one didn’t with such strength that it’s impossible to be mistaken, but the lack of evidence for it can be cited as used to SUPPORT the contention it didn’t and thus rightly be called evidence despite the lack of guarantee.

So, absence of evidence is evidence of absence; just don’t confuse such evidence as implying some kind of undeniable guarantee.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, absence of evidence is evidence of absence; just don’t confuse such evidence as implying some kind of undeniable guarantee.

Did i miss the post where someone made that claim?

It appears to me that most everyone already agrees that the absence of evidence is not 'conclusive proof' of absence, Rather, merely 'consistent with.' Or 'to be expected.'

 

[steve_bank]

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

But but but but...that is what you say. If not in so many words.

 

[untermensche]

"God" is just a placeholder for "ignorance" until the why of some thing is known.

The sun god pushes the sun until gravity and other forces are understood.

The sun god is another way of saying "ignorance" of how something occurs.

As long as there is ignorance of how something occurs a god can fill the void.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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

But but but but...that is what you say. If not in so many words.

IIRC, self-mutation DID insist that, in so many words. Because only an omnipotent being could so totally erase all evidence that He ever existed.
A lesser god would have left some evidence...

 

[fast]

So, absence of evidence is evidence of absence; just don’t confuse such evidence as implying some kind of undeniable guarantee.

Did i miss the post where someone made that claim?

It appears to me that most everyone already agrees that the absence of evidence is not 'conclusive proof' of absence, Rather, merely 'consistent with.' Or 'to be expected.'

I don’t think we’re quite on the same page. My fault; my bad.

“Absence of” obscures the issue when there’s no meeting of the minds as to “evidence.” We might agree, but if for the wrong reason, there’s an issue to be settled.

If there is no Bigfoot, and I show you tracks purportedly left by Bigfoot, is it possible for the tracks to be evidence of Bigfoot? If the answer is yes, we’re good, but if the answer is no, then Houston, we’re going to have a bigger problem when we both agree that the absence of evidence (that Bigfoot exists) doesn’t guarantee that Bigfoot doesn’t exist.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If there is no Bigfoot, and I show you tracks purportedly left by Bigfoot, is it possible for the tracks to be evidence of Bigfoot?

Your premise states there is no Bigfoot.
Therefore, no, it is not possible the tracks are left by Bigfoot, so they are not evidence of Bigfoot.
I can say that because i know your stated premise.
No matter what you or i believe about Bigfoot, or about the tracks, the world of your thought experiment here, makes that impossible.

 

[fast]

If there is no Bigfoot, and I show you tracks purportedly left by Bigfoot, is it possible for the tracks to be evidence of Bigfoot?

Your premise states there is no Bigfoot.
Therefore, no, it is not possible the tracks are left by Bigfoot, so they are not evidence of Bigfoot.
I can say that because i know your stated premise.
No matter what you or i believe about Bigfoot, or about the tracks, the world of your thought experiment here, makes that impossible.

And you’re wrong about that. There can be evidence of X even when there is no X.

 

[fast]

Your premise states there is no Bigfoot.

Correct.

Therefore, no, it is not possible the tracks are left by Bigfoot,

Correct

so they are not evidence of Bigfoot.

Wrong. That there is no Bigfoot does not mean there is nothing used to support the contention that there is a Bigfoot. Again, there can be evidence of X even when there is no X.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

If there is no Bigfoot, and I show you tracks purportedly left by Bigfoot, is it possible for the tracks to be evidence of Bigfoot?
...
Wrong. That there is no Bigfoot does not mean there is nothing used to support the contention that there is a Bigfoot.

You first ask a question of certainty; whether or not it is "possible for the tracks to be evidence of Bigfoot?" The answer to that question is no, it is not in fact possible that the tracks can be evidence of Bigfoot, since you've already stipulated there is no Bigfoot. That is a certainty.

Your "wrong" response then shifts the goalposts of your question from certainty to opinion; from evidence of to evidence for (with a boost from equivocating "evidence" and "contention"). Iow, the question that arises from your "wrong" response is: If there is no Bigfoot, and I show you tracks purportedly left by a Bigfoot, is it possible for the tracks to be used to support the contention that there could exist such creatures as Bigfoot?"

The shift is toward the contention--i.e., the opinion--that a Bigfoot-type creature could exist, but even with that semantic sleight-of-hand your point fails, since the answer to the shifted question is still no. If there is no Bigfoot, then nothing anyone presents can be evidence of such a creature and therefore the contention that such a creature exists should be abandoned.

Or, to put into your terms, there cannot be evidence of X when there is no X. There could only be someone making a mistake in thinking that what they found evidences X and then just obstinately refusing to concede that their opinion about X is incorrect or unfounded.

In short, denial.

 

[fast]

If there is no Bigfoot, and I show you tracks purportedly left by Bigfoot, is it possible for the tracks to be evidence of Bigfoot?
...
Wrong. That there is no Bigfoot does not mean there is nothing used to support the contention that there is a Bigfoot.

You first ask a question of certainty; whether or not it is "possible for the tracks to be evidence of Bigfoot?" The answer to that question is no, it is not in fact possible that the tracks can be evidence of Bigfoot, since you've already stipulated there is no Bigfoot. That is a certainty.

Your "wrong" response then shifts the goalposts of your question from certainty to opinion; from evidence of to evidence for (with a boost from equivocating "evidence" and "contention"). Iow, the question that arises from your "wrong" response is: If there is no Bigfoot, and I show you tracks purportedly left by a Bigfoot, is it possible for the tracks to be used to support the contention that there could exist such creatures as Bigfoot?"

The shift is toward the contention--i.e., the opinion--that a Bigfoot-type creature could exist, but even with that semantic sleight-of-hand your point fails, since the answer to the shifted question is still no. If there is no Bigfoot, then nothing anyone presents can be evidence of such a creature and therefore the contention that such a creature exists should be abandoned.

Or, to put into your terms, there cannot be evidence of X when there is no X. There could only be someone making a mistake in thinking that what they found evidences X and then just obstinately refusing to concede that their opinion about X is incorrect or unfounded.

In short, denial.

My ultimate aim has been to show that we will be misguided in answering the question of whether or not absence of evidence is evidence of absence if we have a skewed view of what evidence is. My stance is that people only partly understand what evidence is, and until that changes, any agreement about whether or not absence of evidence is evidence of absence will be tainted by lacking a meeting of the minds.

There can be evidence for the existence of something that doesn’t exist. That’s just as true as there can be evidence for one having done something they didn’t do. To deny that demonstrates a lack of understanding. Consider a brutal murder where the villain left all kinds of evidence. Someone is arrested and charged with the crime; finally, he is convicted and sentenced to life in prison. He maintains his innocence through the years. Now, for the sake of argument, let’s assume he’s actually innocent. What does that say about the evidence?

The ill-informed will deny there is evidence he committed the crime based on the faulty notion that because he didn’t commit the crime, there therefore can be no evidence that he did.

Evidence is like a tool that can be used for the purpose of demonstrating something. It’s important not to overlook “used for” in cases where one fails to demonstrate what was set out to.

When people bring forward reasons to think Bigfoot exists, that doesn’t mean Bigfoot exists, but what is brought forward (both the weak and the strong) is correctly labeled evidence regardless of the truth of the matter regarding the intentions behind or outcome after bringing it forward.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

There can be evidence for the existence of something that doesn’t exist.

By definition alone, there cannot. There could only—at best—be something that someone mistakes as evidence for something that does not exist, but the simple fact that the thing does not, in fact, exist means there could not possibly be any evidence that it does, in fact, exist.

That’s just as true as there can be evidence for one having done something they didn’t do.

Once again, no there cannot. There can be something that others mistake for evidence of something you did (but actually did not do), but if you did not, in fact, do something, then there cannot be any evidence that you did, in fact, do something.

You’re confusing perceptual mistakes with objective evidence.

Consider a brutal murder where the villain left all kinds of evidence. Someone is arrested and charged with the crime; finally, he is convicted and sentenced to life in prison. He maintains his innocence through the years. Now, for the sake of argument, let’s assume he’s actually innocent. What does that say about the evidence?

Absolutely nothing. What it says it that the people investigating the crime did not understand what the evidence demonstrated.

The ill-informed

You really need to stop trying to use denigration like that. It’s just backfiring.

will deny there is evidence he committed the crime based on the faulty notion that because he didn’t commit the crime, there therefore can be no evidence that he did.

? You want to try that one again?

Evidence is like a tool that can be used for the purpose of demonstrating something. It’s important not to overlook “used for” in cases where one fails to demonstrate what was set out to.

Let’s just skip that one.

When people bring forward reasons to think Bigfoot exists, that doesn’t mean Bigfoot exists, but what is brought forward (both the weak and the strong) is correctly labeled evidence regardless of the truth of the matter regarding the intentions behind or outcome after bringing it forward.

And that one.

 

[fast]

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. I’m not the one confusing “in support of” with “that guarantees the truth of.”

You have bank video surveillance supporting the assertion I robbed a bank, and I have county lock-up video surveillance supporting the assertion that I didn’t. You have evidence that I did rob a bank, and I have evidence that I did not rob a bank. Your evidence supports the assertion irregardless of whether the assertion is true. That’s what it means to be evidence, not that it guarantees the truth of the assertion but rather if it supports it.

 

[Speakpigeon]

If there is no Bigfoot, and I show you tracks purportedly left by Bigfoot, is it possible for the tracks to be evidence of Bigfoot?

Your premise states there is no Bigfoot.
Therefore, no, it is not possible the tracks are left by Bigfoot, so they are not evidence of Bigfoot.
I can say that because i know your stated premise.
No matter what you or i believe about Bigfoot, or about the tracks, the world of your thought experiment here, makes that impossible.

And you’re wrong about that. There can be evidence of X even when there is no X.

Yes, you're absolutely correct, even though there is good evidence you are wrong.

Let me repeat: you are absolutely correct.

I guess the dispute comes down to what it is that the word "evidence" means. Many people here take the word "evidence" to refer to something like an absolute proof. They think that there could be evidence of Bigfoot only if Bigfoot existed. Aw, all wrong. As you say, there can be evidence of something that doesn't exist. Unfortunately, there is evidence that even educated people, people with a higher education, don't speak proper English. They're so well educated, they couldn't be bothered to check in a dictionary and they are so trusting that evidence is absolute proof that they don't need to check if there is evidence that this is what the word "evidence" means, at least according to dictionaries. So, this is a lost battle. There's evidence we're all going to die anyway and people like you won't be around to fight the battle for King and country and dictionaries. These guys just won. Spelling mistakes win in the long run. It's the rule of the mob. They all disagree with each other but they spell the same. There's just you and me left and we going to have to go at some point.

Still, it's good to see we agree on something if not on what the word "knowledge" means.

And, as you probably "know", there is evidence that our debates here are not meant for people to get any further education at all. People here aren't going to change their minds about anything, darn no. They post to waste their time. They post to vent their futile opinions. No logic, no fact will get in the way of that.

Mind you, the word "proof" is just as bad. You can have proof that bigfoot exist. You can have proof that God exist. Literally. That's annoying, isn't it?

And if my mind is compelled to accept that people here are just wrong about what the word "evidence" means, it has to be because I have the proof that they are wrong. My mind being compelled leaves me no room to deny the evidence that most people here are just wrong pretty much about most of what they claim (and most people, not just DBT or UM).

Still, I have the pleasure of reading you as a consolation prize.

Aw.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. I’m not the one confusing “in support of” with “that guarantees the truth of.”

You have bank video surveillance supporting the assertion I robbed a bank, and I have county lock-up video surveillance supporting the assertion that I didn’t. You have evidence that I did rob a bank, and I have evidence that I did not rob a bank. Your evidence supports the assertion irregardless of whether the assertion is true. That’s what it means to be evidence, not that it guarantees the truth of the assertion but rather if it supports it.

Yes, excellent, this is good evidence and even proof that you are correct. This has to be overkill.

And, perhaps most importantly, evidence your brain can help you support your claims! This has to be unfair for the rest of us.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

There can be evidence for the existence of something that doesn’t exist.

By definition alone, there cannot.

From dictionary definition alone, Sir, it is evident you're completely wrong.

Here is a definition of the word "evidence":

Evidence
1.
a. A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weighed the evidence for and against the hypothesis.
b. Something indicative; an indication or set of indications: saw no evidence of grief on the mourner's face.
2. Law
a. The means by which an allegation may be proven, such as oral testimony, documents, or physical objects.
b. The set of legal rules determining what testimony, documents, and objects may be admitted as proof in a trial.

Definitions provided by dictionaries are evidence. They are also good evidence since they are produced by professionals and there's a long tradition of dictionaries in particular in English.

And we have no evidence to support the notion that you could be the authority around here to decide what the definition of the word "evidence" is.

So, from definition alone, Sir, it is evident you're completely wrong.
EB

 

[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

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?

You're very, very bad at logic. You should try to keep clear of making any claim about it.

Evidence = evidence
Not evidence = not evidence

Good marks again, I should be impressed.

Now try to articulate why that would somehow disprove my claim that absence of evidence is evidence of absence...

You haven't even tried to do it already, and I don't remember you ever trying to articulate something like an argument, so I guess my request is somewhat futile but logic questions are always welcome with me.

So, the evidence I have for now is that you are unable to articulate your views in a rational way. Let's see if you can produce better evidence to the contrary.

I'm holding my breath here, so don't take too long.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

Er, no, you won't. You're guilty among other things of special pleading.

And special pleading is a sin against God, if you want to know.

Special pleading
2. The presentation of an argument that mentions or emphasises only favorable aspects of the question at issue.

See?

Because here are the facts:

1. The absence of evidence that God doesn't exist is evidence that God exist

2. The absence of evidence that God exists is evidence that God doesn't exist.

Proposition 1 and 2 are both correct.

See?

Now, wash your mouth and go to confess.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

You should look inside the fridge.
View attachment 19665

Is that you?

Now I have evidence.
EB

 

[Keith&Co.]

so they are not evidence of Bigfoot.

Wrong. That there is no Bigfoot does not mean there is nothing used to support the contention that there is a Bigfoot. Again, there can be evidence of X even when there is no X.

You're asking two different questions here.

You started the story problem with omniscient knowledge, there are none Bigfeet.
I believe you are trying to ask the question of evidence from a more limited viewpoint, but you never made the distinction in the question.

You need to rephrase to get your actual point across, rather than just talking yourself into a corner.