Absence of Evidence..............

In the absence of empirical evidence what conclusions can we justifiably draw?Example 1
In the absence of any physical evidence for or against the existence of the soul we should grant these two opposing points of view equal merit with regard to ethical questions in medical research. Both viewpoints are based on personal prejudice and philosophical assumptions rather than actual physical evidence. Both are equally valid.
Right?Example 2
In the absence of any physical evidence in favour of miracles we should treat historical analyses of Jesus that assume the miraculous as equally valid to those that do not assume the miraculous to have occurred. Both viewpoints are based on personal prejudice and philosophical assumptions rather than actual physical evidence. Both are equally valid.
Right?Example 3
In the absence of any physical evidence for the existence of God we should obviously treat the probability of the existence of God as 50/50. Any other conclusion in either direction is the result of personal prejudice, philosophical bias or faith based belief.
Right?Example 4
In the absence of any physical evidence for the Hindu God Vishnu we should obviously treat the existence of Vishnu as 50/50. Any other conclusion in either direction is the result of personal prejudice, philosophical bias or faith based belief.
Right?Example 5
In the absence of any physical evidence against the claim that ”sub quantised transdimensional energy fluxes can boost ones aura and enhance ones metaphysical being’ we should regularly take a ”quanta flux booster pill’ (copyright Straggler 2008 - available soon in all good pharmacies, watch this space) in order to ensure a healthy and well balanced aura. In the absence of any physical evidence for or against this claim denial of it’s validity is the result of ant-spritual prejudice and 'empirical-only' philosophical bias.
Right?Discussion
A recurring theme here at EvC is the concept that ”Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’. Those of a theistic bent tend to selectively use this argument in application to their own unfounded beliefs whilst dismissing any equivalent claims to things that they find as equally ridiculous as I find their claims of the supernatural.Should not the default position, i.e. the position in the absence of any evidence always be disbelief rather than belief?In practice is not the default position for everyone disbelief rather than belief almost all of the time? Exceptions are then made, by some, with regard to the extraordinary claims of religion and other aspects of the supernatural which are deemed ”untestable’.Is not empirical evidence the only basis on which reliable conclusions can be made? The only form of evidence that can ultimately establish the truth or otherwise of any given claim? The only form of evidence that actually warrants the term “evidence”?Questions
If you are religious at all, is there any area apart from your religious beliefs where you would be willing to believe in something without empirical evidence of some kind? Why should we believe in, or make concessions to, anything for which there is no physical evidence?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added blank lines between "examples" and between apparent paragraphs (there was a line break) later in the message.

Look inside? If it was there and I was able to exhaustively search for it I would find it.
Are you claiming that we can find empirical evidence for the soul (for example) if we just look hard enough? Or is the soul inherently non-empirical?
Surely you can see the difference here? If there is no empirical reason whatsoever to beleieve that something even might exist then there is a very high degree of certainty that it does not. Proof or certainty about anything doesn't come into it. Ah that old chestnut. No such thing. Or if there is give me an example of a form of non-empirical and what conclusion you can draw from this "evidence".
I have been through this with Iano so you might want to see this before replying http://EvC Forum: Probability of the existence of God -->EvC Forum: Probability of the existence of God Do you? Really? Based on non-empirical evidence? Both well covered by empirical (evidence is debated in the latter but I know of no-one who claims global warming is a lie based on a non-empirical "feeling") In which case the claims of every nutjob on the planet should be treated as equally as valid as any religious claims for the soul and such like.Edited by Straggler, : Add LinkEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.

On that basis the teachings of Scientology should be acknowldged as potentially valid and treated as such by society.Shoul truth be a majority decision? Which is the evidence and which is the conclusion? The two merge into a single delusion. The delusion that you have a soul. Well......you have been made aware of other peoples accounts of these things. But that is splitting hairs.
Why believe in these things and yet not other equally unevidenced claims?
Why not believe in the infamous (and admittedly overused) invisible pink unicorn? Oh plausibility.
Well now we are getting to the nub of the argument.
On what basis do we judge plausibility in the complete absence of empirical evidence?
Can you give an example of a non-empirical yet plausible (as you judge it to be) claim and an implausible claim and tell me the basis on which you made the decision that one was plausible and one was not?

Fair point. My OP was written with those things for which it is claimed that there can be no empirical evidence, or for which empirical evidence is deemed somehow unnecessary in order to ascertain the truth of a claim. However this is not as clear in the OP as it should be.

So that my loved ones are not left completely financially screwed by my absence.......obviously!! True. BUT there are many things that people like you claim are utterly and inherently unknowable, untestable and non-empirical. It is these things I dispute the validity and existence of. Not the things for which inadequate technology or insufficient evidence is the cause of our ignorance. Which is why I suggest it is fundamentally silly idea. Borne of wishful thinking and philosophical bias with no basis in truth whatsoever. No you won't. The fact that death is certain is exactly why it is not the same at all.
the probability of death is certain.
The probability of you meeting your maker in a spiritual afterlife once you die.... well pretty darn negligible by the reckoning of any actual evidence worth that name.
Your beliefs to the contrary are irrelevant in determining the truth of your claims. Delusion rather than truth is the obvious conclusion.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

My OP was aimed at beliefs in things for which it is claimed that there can be no empirical evidence. Things that are said to be inherently non-empirical, untestable and physically unknowable. E.g. God, the soul, personal auras etc. etc. etc.I should have made this much clearer in the OP. This is the same point I was making with this example. It seems to a be a common argument here at EvC that if we have no physical evidence on which to base any conclusions we should treat all claims equally. This position is obviously logically flawed. Here I do not agree.
A complete absence of physical evidence of any kind in relation to a claim, especially if evidence for the claim in question is pro-actively sought, can only ever suggest that the claim is false.If a scientific theory predicted a certain new particle (for example) and after years of research and a multitude of experiments designed to detect the particle no evidence for the particle was found would we not consider the theory as having been at least possibly falsified and a new theory necessary?
There is no certainty in science so absence of evidence for something is in practical terms about as certain as it is possible to get.In the case of the soul (for example) the complete absence of any empirical basis for such a claim means that the reasons given for belief in such a thing are inherently and demonstrably unreliable. In the absence of physical evidence for such a thing we must conclude that it does not exist.Any claim to the contrary and we head back into the realm of invisible pink unicorns once again.

Not at all because when I feel the the presence of the invisible pink unicorn I can feel the pinkness of his aura. I know he exists and I know he is pink. Should he choose to show himself he would indeed reflect the appropriate wavelengths of light but his pinkness is more than just physical colour. It is an inherent part of his very being.
You cannot tell me what I know or the basis on which I know it. I know.
I have non-empirical evidence in the form of my intuition and feelings that support this comprehensive and well founded belief in the mighty invisible pink unicorn. Praise be to him.

The things I think you refer to are largely based on mathematical constructs. Nobody can dispute that there is an inherent relation between mathematics and reality in some sense. The nature and strength of this relation is an intriguing question in it's own right. I would certainly think the relationship strong enough to warrant empirical research into these things on the basis of the very empirical fact that mathematical constructs have previously succsessfully given rise to scientifically testable theories of reality.
However if after exhaustive research into things such as string theory (that potentially gives rise to colliding branes, T<0, multiverse, parallel universes etc. etc.) there remains and absolute absence of any empirical evidence for such things then - Yes I ultimately would include them.
Strings, branes etc. are not inherently untestable in the same that is claimed for the soul. They have a basis in mathematics with which there is a strong and interesting link with empiricism. They also are indisputably fucking difficult to test experimentally. There is a fundamental difference here. There is no rational reason to believe in them. Nor God, nor the soul, nor Vishna etc. etc. That is the point. That is a contradiction in terms. How can there be no empiriical evidence for the existence of a species that we know existed purely through empirical means?
The fact we thought they had all died out is a stupid example and a stupid argument in the context of evidence for things which are inherently non-empirical. An argument that frankly Raz is beneath you. Yes such as a graviton. Indeed insufficient technology is a problem when it comes to empirical eveidence for things. But that is a very different problem to saying that something is inherently unknowable. If our only reason for thinking we cannot detect gravitons is technological then nobody is claiming that their existence should be ruled out. But if sufficient technology for their detection is deemed to be in place and still we consistently fail to find them then it is time for a new theory to be put forward.
That is how science progresses. Evidence is not about certainty. It is about likelihood. I cannot be certain that someone who says God told him to kill prostitutes did not actually converse with God. But I doubt it. I cannot guarantee that he who claims the existence of the invisible pink unicorn is not actaully the sole knower of truth in the universe. But I doubt it. I cannot truly know if someone tells me that they have a soul that they do not. But I doubt it.
All are equally (un)evidenced.
At what point does the necessarily tentativeness of empirical investigation become to all practical intents and purposes certainty?
The same certainty that you no doubt apply to the existence of invisible pink unicorns should be applied to the existence of the soul on the bais of evidence at hand. That is my argument in a nutshell.Do you really disagree with that? Phew!! I thought we had lost you there for a moment

I am not sure what you are actually advocating in practical terms.If claims are made for the possible existence of something completely non-empirical and these claims have a direct consequence on perceived moral issues regarding actual practical restrictions should we heed those concerns or not?I am obviously thinking of Christian claims of a soul and the effect this has on medical research but I am trying (admittedly clumsily) to keep the question more general and not derail the whole thread down that one topic route.

I have obviously not explained myself well enough. Claims of 'truth' in any direction were not what was intended. No evidence based claim one way or the other can ever be declared as "truth". The inherent tentativity of science is, in my opinion it's guiding light and source of success. However there comes a point where to all practical intents and purposes conclusions must be deemed to be "true". Which subjects are not based on the empirical?
Language? Art? Literature? Are these not products of the very empirical human brain. A brain that has evolved over millions of years?
I am not advocating we replace "art appreciation" with lessons on evolutionary psychology and attempts to answer why we find certain things appealing. Perish the thought!!!
But the roots of these things are undeniably empirical. How can you claim this as an example of non-empirical when the very empirical act of slicing parts out of someones brain has the effects that you are using in your example.
The fact that the physical brain is required to perform such "non-empirical" functions is about as strong evidence as could be delivered to the fact that at root these things are indeed rooted in the empirical.
Either we mean very different things by empirical or you are inherently contradicting yourself.I am not trying to turn myself into some sort of logical rational automaton. Good Lord I would rather die!!!
All is rooted in the empirical is my claim. Slicing people's brains in half and pointing out that their individuality, personality and being are deeply affected is hardly an argument against this is it?I don't see how anything you have said has any real relevance as to whether or not those things for which it is claimed that there can be no empirical basis or evidence should be considered to exist or not?Do you believe that you have an empirically undetectable spiritual "aura". If not why not? There are many that would claim that you do? On what basis do you dismiss ther claims (assuming that you do)?

Too true. Does anything ever have absolute answers? Outside of religion (which claims absolutes but on shaky ground by any objective standard) and mathematics. With all due respect that is not really an answer.
Each position considers itself to have the best answer in practical terms. Each position believes it has the best access to the "truth". Each position just places different emphasis on what it believes is most beneficial on the basis of what it believes to be "true".
The theistic may place an emphasis on faith and absolute morality as most beneficial and most likley to lead to "truth" (for example).Science is not simply being pragmatic as you suggest. Philosophically science and empiricism is stating that logically it is the only means to reliable conclusions (note not "truth" - in fact the very absence for claims of truth is the basis of science).The gist of this thread is effectively 'Does empiricism have the only valid claim to meaningful conclusions?'I would say an unresounding "yes".

Non-empirical? Such as....?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

It's symbolic reality is neither here nor there. My claim is that the invisible pink unicorn is true.Do you dispute the truth (or likelihood of truth if we want to be pedantic) of my claim and if so on what grounds?

Frankly I had expected to be arguing against the Iano and Catholic Scientist forms of non-empirical "evidence" here.This has turned out to be potentially much more interesting I am still intrigued as to your description, or example of non-empirical ways of thinking?You are quite right that I am probably confusing and conflating empirical with physical evidence in this context.In the OP I did not feel the need to differentiate between the two given the arguments I expected to be facing.As things stand with regard to your position I am still unclear as to the precise difference between physical evidence and empirical evidence.In your opinion would a suitably futuristic MRA scanner show a physical/empirical basis behind every thought, emotion etc. etc. or is there "something else" that defines this non-empirical stance of yours?

Yes that is what I meant. Now that really is food for thought. It is definitely a logically valid argument against the premise and assumptions of the OP whatver the practical implications may be.I shall go away and think about that. Thanks for the response. Interesting take on the topic!!