Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (shifting the burden of proof fallacy)

[Underseer]

Dear Christians,

You want to know how you sound when you use shifting the burden of proof fallacies? Like this:



Somewhere around the three minute mark, one of the Muslim apologists says "Just because there's no evidence of ants talking doesn't mean ants don't talk."

Well, yes. That is completely correct, but it is also completely irrelevant. Since we cannot observe every single ant all the time, technically, we cannot prove that ants don't talk.

That doesn't mean it's reasonable to believe that ants talk.

No matter how much they complain that my position is absurd because I can't prove that ants don't talk, they still have the burden of proof regarding the claim of talking ants. If they do not meet the burden of proof for talking ants, we are free to dismiss their claim that ants can talk.

No matter how many times they point out that the negation can't be proved, they still have the burden of proving their own claim.

It is reasonable for me to reject the claim that ants can talk unless and until someone provides evidence of talking ants.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I look out at the Universe and I see a material Universe. I see things like evolution, and creation of stars depending on natural forces and material Universe without need for guidance. I do not see any trace of supernaturalism, God(s) or some transcendent reality.

Is there a logical case to be made that such things must exist? No. Is revelation relevant? No, we have far too many revelations that contradict each other to assume revelation is relevant. Since obviously most of the revelations must be false, we can question if all of them might be false.

So trying to prove anything from revelation in regards to God(s) is false, unless one can demonstrate one revelation is in fact true. And since attempts to logically demonstrate God have proven fruitless, we can ignore that.

The burden then is on those who wish to claim the supernatural exists, or the transcedent causes exist, or God(s) exist.

And I don't accept the claim something may be possible does the deed. I need hard evidence it IS the case.

In the recent past, science has proven a lot of useful things. Chemistry, physics, medical science, cosmology and more. Notable failures that have never given us anything real world useful includes religion, theology, occultism, mysticism and pseudoscience. Why should I trust these with things that cannot be observed?

The burden of proof is on the believers. Whose theories about God and the nature of God seem to soon get involved in contradictions, logical problems and obscurantism. Where is the hard evidence?

 

[Eldarion Lathria]

Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of presence. You STILL have to prove it's there theists.

Eldarion Lathria

 

[DBT]

Absence of evidence where evidence for the presence of something should be found is indeed evidence for absence....

 

[AJ113]

...Somewhere around the three minute mark, one of the Muslim apologists says "Just because there's no evidence of ants talking doesn't mean ants don't talk."

Well, yes. That is completely correct...

Is it? I don't really know much about philosophy, etc. but in my world, the fact that no ant has ever been known to talk in all the history of mankind is reason enough to declare that ants don't talk. I mean, surely there is a point when we can declare something as fact, like, skyscrapers cannot give birth to baby pandas? Otherwise we'd have to say that anything is possible, therefore we can't declare anything as fact.

I don't know where the saying originated from that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but for me, it's quite the reverse, i.e. absence of evidence absolutely is evidence of absence.

 

[DBT]

but for me, it's quite the reverse, i.e. absence of evidence absolutely is evidence of absence.

Not absolutely. Ants may not 'talk' but they can and do communicate information. There is evidence for that.

 

[bigfield]

Russell's teapot

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy, coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others. Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion. He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong. Russell's teapot is still invoked in discussions concerning the existence of God, and in various other contexts.

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

 

[AJ113]

but for me, it's quite the reverse, i.e. absence of evidence absolutely is evidence of absence.

Not absolutely. Ants may not 'talk' but they can and do communicate information. There is evidence for that.

So what? There is evidence that ants bite people's arses too, but that - like your comment - is irrelevant. The assertion is that ants TALK. There is no evidence that ants TALK, there is no evidence that any animal ever, in the history of the world has ever talked, therefore ants do not TALK.

 

[DBT]

Not absolutely. Ants may not 'talk' but they can and do communicate information. There is evidence for that.

So what? There is evidence that ants bite people's arses too, but that - like your comment - is irrelevant. The assertion is that ants TALK. There is no evidence that ants TALK, there is no evidence that any animal ever, in the history of the world has ever talked, therefore ants do not TALK.

I don't entirely disagree with what you say, but the 'history of the world' is a broad statement given that research into animal communication is a relatively new undertaking. We don't have evidence for language use in any animal species other than human, but there is evidence for complex means of communication. More a degree or level of communication than just an inability to 'talk.'

 

[AJ113]

...We don't have evidence for language use in any animal species other than human...

Correct. You can sidetrack as much as you like, equivocate as much as you like, but I say that ants can't talk. If you are arguing otherwise, present your evidence. Just to clarify: evidence of a talking ant would involve presenting an ant that can talk.

 

[fast]

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

What it's not is a guarantee.

The problem is a misunderstanding of what it means to say of something that it's evidence. Something that can support an assertion is evidence, even when it doesn't guarantee that the assertion is true. A common talking point is to deny something is evidence when it doesn't guarantee that it proves what's it's being used for, but that is predicated on the misunderstanding. For instance, if I use a gun to shoot someone and plant the gun in your home, the presence of the gun in your home can be used as a piece of evidence to support the claim that you shot someone. Yes, the bar is low, but that's the way it is--if it can be used to support a contention, then it's supporting (not guaranteeing) evidence. People have this notion that something isn't evidence just because it might not prove what's it's being used to claim.

If we look for evidence but find no evidence that you're in the house, that itself can be used as evidence to support the claim you're not in the house, and that is so even if you're actually in the house, as (again) evidence need only support the assertion--not guarantee its truth.

 

[AJ113]

A...Something that can support an assertion is evidence, even when it doesn't guarantee that the assertion is true...

OK, but when you don't have anything at all to support an assertion, then you have an absence of evidence.

 

[Underseer]

...Somewhere around the three minute mark, one of the Muslim apologists says "Just because there's no evidence of ants talking doesn't mean ants don't talk."

Well, yes. That is completely correct...

Is it? I don't really know much about philosophy, etc. but in my world, the fact that no ant has ever been known to talk in all the history of mankind is reason enough to declare that ants don't talk. I mean, surely there is a point when we can declare something as fact, like, skyscrapers cannot give birth to baby pandas? Otherwise we'd have to say that anything is possible, therefore we can't declare anything as fact.

I don't know where the saying originated from that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but for me, it's quite the reverse, i.e. absence of evidence absolutely is evidence of absence.

It is not reasonable to believe ants can talk unless and until someone provides evidence of an ant talking, particularly in light of the fact that ants lack the necessary parts to produce human speech.

However we cannot prove in the 100% sense that ants don't talk unless we can somehow observe every minute of every ant's life for all the world for all time. Yes, it is ludicrous to believe that ants talk, but we still cannot prove the negation.

 

[Underseer]

It is not reasonable to believe in fairies unless and until someone provides evidence of fairies, even though we can't technically disprove fairies either.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Before she passed away my neighbor always said I was an angel, and not just a nice person angel but a real angel. That's evidence that I'm an angel. Not proof, of course, just evidence.

 

[fast]

A...Something that can support an assertion is evidence, even when it doesn't guarantee that the assertion is true...

OK, but when you don't have anything at all to support an assertion, then you have an absence of evidence.

I can explain this, but there is a subtle difference to be mindful of. If there is indeed absence of evidence to support a claim, then there is in fact (no evidence) to support a claim. However, sometimes (and thus sometimes not) the absence of evidence itself can be evidence thereby rendering the intended meaning of "absence of evidence" equivalent to "absence of additional evidence" beyond the absence.

Back to the person in the house example. If you go into a house and try very hard to find someone, it's possible to come back and make the claim that there is an absence of evidence to support the claim that anyone is in the house; however, because you found no evidence, the very absence of any evidence found can itself be used to support the claim that no one is in the house, so in cases where the absence of evidence is supportive of a claim, it would not in fact be a case where there is an absence of evidence but an absence of additional evidence.

 

[AJ113]

...
However we cannot prove in the 100% sense that ants don't talk unless we can somehow observe every minute of every ant's life for all the world for all time. Yes, it is ludicrous to believe that ants talk, but we still cannot prove the negation.

As I said in my earlier post, if you take that line of thought, then there is no such thing as fact, because there will always be some far-fetched possible exception to every fact that can't be disproved. You can't say "it is ludicrous to believe that ants talk" and then in the same breath say "we cannot prove in the 100% sense that ants don't talk". It's one or the other.

So I say again: Ants don't talk. If you think otherwise, present your evidence.

 

[AJ113]

OK, but when you don't have anything at all to support an assertion, then you have an absence of evidence.

I can explain this, but there is a subtle difference to be mindful of. If there is indeed absence of evidence to support a claim, then there is in fact (no evidence) to support a claim. However, sometimes (and thus sometimes not) the absence of evidence itself can be evidence thereby rendering the intended meaning of "absence of evidence" equivalent to "absence of additional evidence" beyond the absence.

Back to the person in the house example. If you go into a house and try very hard to find someone, it's possible to come back and make the claim that there is an absence of evidence to support the claim that anyone is in the house; however, because you found no evidence, the very absence of any evidence found can itself be used to support the claim that no one is in the house, so in cases where the absence of evidence is supportive of a claim, it would not in fact be a case where there is an absence of evidence but an absence of additional evidence.

Bullshit or semantics. I can't quite decide which.

 

[Lion IRC]

Many sceptics say "there is no evidence" when what they should rather say is that they personally haven't seen (experienced) the evidence themselves.

For the sake of your own intellectual integrity (assuming that's important to you) please stop saying "there is no evidence" which is a universal assertion of fact.

 

[Lion IRC]

An eye witness in court gives evidence that they saw the crime happen.
But is a claim that you saw something really evidence? Yes of course it is.

Whether or not the evidence is credible or persuasive is another question.

But since all evidence is derived from the senses, sooner or later you have to decide whether or not to trust your own eyes, ears, etc. and/or the eyes and ears of others who present evidence of what they have seen and heard (experienced.)

The uber-sceptic can, if they want, dismiss any evidence. They can say ghosts are hallucinations, concentration camp survivors are liars, global warming scientists are biased, 9/11 was a hoax...they can literally decide for themselves what 'evidence' they choose to accept AS evidence.