Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 854 of 1725 (603521)
02-04-2011 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 851 by Rahvin
02-04-2011 5:37 PM


Re: A positive assertion of an extraordinary claim needs to be supported by evidence
Hi Rahvin,
What, specifically and in detail, would you consider to be strong evidence that a given hypothetical entity does not exist? Or even just enough evidence to convince you that the actual existence of such an entity is unlikely?
This would be more up to those trying to establish this, they would need to have a method or process to test information and determine the results. Then that method or process would have to be tested, and develop positive results.
Essentially you are asking me how they would prove a negative: I don't think this is possible, rather that this is one of the essential problems with these debates -- they are not resolved by fact and science, because fact and science cannot touch supernatural things by definition.
This is why I object when some people claim to know more than is possible, imho, to know.
My personal opinion is that god/s are possible, but am skeptical of specific claims being correct. Opinion is not evidence, nor fact though, so when it comes to logic and available evidence, I'm agnostic. See The persistent question of evidence ... for clarification.
If you feel you've already gone over this somewhere, please feel free to link to it - this debate has spanned so many threads over so much time it's entirely possible I may have missed or forgotten your answer to a similar question.
It has been beaten to death that is for sure. Perhaps you should ask the other participants why they try to take an essentially unwinnable position?
I'm leaving the specific entity to use as an example up to you -
See xongsmith on this thread regarding the
Flying Spaghetti Monster - Wikipedia
But that was demonstrating that it was made up intentionally with the author admitting it.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 851 by Rahvin, posted 02-04-2011 5:37 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 855 by Rahvin, posted 02-04-2011 8:03 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 862 of 1725 (603549)
02-05-2011 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 855 by Rahvin
02-04-2011 8:03 PM


Re: A positive assertion of an extraordinary claim needs to be supported by evidence
Hi Rahvin, much most of this has been discussed before as well.
Proving a negative is impossible.
Hence claiming a negative is rather silly, imho, no matter how you dress it up.
But it does seem to be possible to establish relative likelihoods given predictions stemming from a hypothesis of existence, wouldn't you agree?
No, for a simple reason, that in order to judge "relative likelihoods" you need to know the possibilities: to judge the "relative likelihood" of a lottery ticket winning you need to know how many were sold and whether tickets will be drawn whether sold or not, whether you have to be there in person during the drawing to claim the prize or if you can win in absentia. If you don't know if it is one in two or one in two million, then you are in no position to "establish relative likelihoods" ... when you throw a di you are in no position to "establish relative likelihoods" of one side being on top without knowing how many sides there are or whether the di is weighted or bias shaped.
After all, I can determine whether there is a pen on my desk by looking at my desk - an absence of the expected evidence (observing the pen) would not be proof of the nonexistence of the pen, but in the absence of any other factors it would still be sufficient to sway the relative probabilities in favor of the null hypothesis that there is no pen on my desk.
And there you go assuming the negative, which is not the default position. Does it mean that the pen does not exist, or just that it is not where you expect it and doesn't play by your rules.
I'm aware this isn't directly analogous to deities. My desk is a finite space that is easily searchable, and a pen is a discrete object with well-defined characteristics such that any person can identify it and can do so with the natural five senses; all of existence is rather larger.
Nor does the pen not being on the desk prove that the pen does not exist, if the desk is the only place you can search, then it is likely that you will not find the pen even though it exists in a nearby space.
In addition, you could be expecting a ball-point pen when there is a feather in an ink-well that you do not recognize as a pen. You could also be expecting something that is a straw man of what you are interested in finding: not finding the strawman you conclude that your search turned up negative evidence. Perhaps what you should be looking for is a writing implement, and there are several pencils, crayons and markers on the desk that you ignore because they do not fit your mental pen definition.
Do you think god/s purpose is to show up for you?
But would you agree that, even when proof of a negative is impossible, it can in some cases be possible to show that a given entity is less likely to exist than it is to exist, that the chances are not an even 50/50?
In other words, just assume that you are right based on your opinion?
What you can demonstrate with your pen analogy is that you did not find the answer to your search, because either you were looking in the wrong place, or had the wrong concept of what you were looking for. There could be more reasons for your search to come up empty than that there is a negative result. Unless you know those you have no way to judge relative possibilities.
The coelacanth is an excellent example of looking in the wrong place for something that existed.
I disagree. In the past, those things that we have identified as "supernatural" have simply been phenomenon that were not well understood at the time.
What is the difference between a purely natural phenomenon in a non-god made universe and the same phenomenon universe made by god/s where they define what is "natural"?
I think it's a rather supreme act of hubris to observe a phenomenon that contradicts our understanding of the universe and say that the universe is somehow making an exception, that our understanding of the rules is perfect.
You are welcome to your opinion. Curiously, what you are in effect saying is that you believe at some future point our understanding of the rules will be perfect .... which seems like high hubris to me.
Can you give an example of an entity you think most likely does not exist, other than the standards of the IPU and the FSM? Preferably, I'd like an example of an entity that we can't be sure was made up.
Curiously, that would only be my personal opinion, not any kind of evidence based conclusion. We both know that opinion is not able to alter reality. I am comfortable knowing that it is opinion, and thus don't feel any need to discuss them: you likely have your opinions, and any differences are as likely to be as unresolvable as whether or not god/s exist.
I will say that there are many things that I see no need to believe or disbelieve, as I don't see either case being a life threatening or affecting issue.
Does the existence of the IPU affect my life? Does the non-existence of the IPU affect my life? If the answer to both is no, then why do I even need to consider a decision?
If it does affect my life, then I will make the decision I personally find more appealing based on my incomplete knowledge of reality AND on my personal opinions and biases, my world-view, and then behave according to that decision\opinions\biases, whether right or wrong.
Same with god/s.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 855 by Rahvin, posted 02-04-2011 8:03 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 875 by Rahvin, posted 02-05-2011 6:52 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 863 of 1725 (603550)
02-05-2011 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 861 by crashfrog
02-04-2011 10:50 PM


Re: A positive assertion of an extraordinary claim needs to be supported by evidenceH
Hi crashfrog,
More ad hominems and the logical fallacy of appeal to consequences. Curiously, I am not interested in the opinions of people, especially those that can't recognize a logical fallacy when they see use one.
But no you do not have objective empirical evidence.
What evidence have you provided for the non-made-up-ness of any supernatural being?
Curiously I have not asserted that supernatural beings do actually exist, only that it is my opinion that it is possible that they may exist. That possibility is based on logical analysis of all the available evidence and the lack of a valid conclusion either way.
What I have shown, however, is that it has not been demonstrated that human invention is the only possible source. That too is all that is necessary to maintain an agnostic position.
A non-agnostic position is not based on logic, but on assumption and bias --- unless you actually have objective empirical evidence pro or con.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 861 by crashfrog, posted 02-04-2011 10:50 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 865 by crashfrog, posted 02-05-2011 1:12 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 872 by onifre, posted 02-05-2011 2:34 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 864 of 1725 (603551)
02-05-2011 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 860 by xongsmith
02-04-2011 10:19 PM


Re: How I see the strong confirmation bias
Hi xongsmith,
But that is NOT the hypothesis, RAZD.
Curiously that is how it was originally stated, even if it is not a direct quote:
In Message 167 on the An Exploration Into"Agnosticism" thread bluegenes asserted:
quote:
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".
No equivocation about "known to science" in that assertion.
The hypothesis is that when you are able to make the source of a supernatural being KNOWN, that it turns out to always (so far) to be a product of human imagination.
Except that's not the way he stated it originally, which you agree was badly overstated at best.
Nor does it address the cases when you are NOT able to make the source of a supernatural being KNOWN, what do you do then? assume it is one or the other? Do you (a) just assume that because of the above testable situations, that they are all produced by human imagination? Or do you (b) assume that the reason you cannot make the source known may be because it is supernatural?
If (b) is actually true, then the set of instances where you can test and determine the source are filtered to be only those cases where human invention is involved, while the set of instances where you cannot test and determine the source are filtered to include those cases where human invention is not involved [i]because;/i they involve supernatural sources.
Logically you cannot make either assumption with any assurance of being right.
It may be demonstrated later on down this road that, by the very nature of scientific peer-reviewed investigational procedure, the only cases that can even structurally fall into consideration are in fact only those cases where it can be demonstrated to be human imagination, accounting for the purported 100% success rate of the "theory". This would indeed have a built-in defect of forcing the innocent scientists in question to be forced into affirming the consequent, beyond their ability to avoid it
Exactly.
And by KNOWN, I think we can all agree that this means a scientific peer-reviewed investigation.
Then they should be available to be cited and quoted: where are they? Along with the list of which supernatural entities were found to be inventions.
Well - of course, but that is not what is going on here.
Amusingly it has happened recently. It happens every time someone makes up a caricature and then claims that it is evidence that supernatural beings are made up inventions of the human mind. Do you have any idea how many times different people have made this claim?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : splng

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 860 by xongsmith, posted 02-04-2011 10:19 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 866 by xongsmith, posted 02-05-2011 12:49 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 871 by Modulous, posted 02-05-2011 2:24 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 876 of 1725 (603607)
02-05-2011 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 778 by Adminnemooseus
02-03-2011 3:51 AM


petrophysics is interested
Hi moose
please see my PNTmessage 4
we could also put the bluegenes thread on hold if he is willing, as the results there may be of interest to him as well.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 778 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-03-2011 3:51 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 879 by petrophysics1, posted 02-06-2011 1:10 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 877 of 1725 (603608)
02-05-2011 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 875 by Rahvin
02-05-2011 6:52 PM


possibilities and probabilities
Hi Rahvin,
I don't want to get into a lot of detail here, I have enough on my plate (and not just here) so I will address one issue.
You're applying our argument to gods again, and I specifically stated that I wasn't trying to talk about that.
But it seems that you want to use your argument as a general analogy for all cases of attempts to estimate probability on poor and inadequate information, starting with a straw man.
There are circumstances where one can determine that a negative claim is more likely to be accurate than a positive claim. If I search my desk, and I don't find a pen, it must be more likely that there is no pen on my desk.
This is a straw man for your claim that we can judge some degree of probability, because what you have set up is a situation where the result is known, it is fact, and thus the probability is one if the pen is on the desk and zero if it isn't, there are no in between conditions of knowledge.
If you change the condition to ask if the pen is near the desk and only look on the top surface of the desk then you have three possibilities: (1) the pen is on the desk, (2) the pen is near but not on the desk and (3) the pen is nowhere near the desk.
If you look at the desk top and do not see the pen then the probability, based on the two remaining possible conditions is 1/2 that the pen is nowhere near the desk (you've eliminated the first by not seeing the pen).
The reason you can calculate the probability in these situations is because you know all the possibilities in both cases.
We could add a fourth case, (4) the pen does not exist, and then we see that the probability of this being right in this example is 1/3rd.
The more possibilities the less the probability. and in none of these cases does the probability get more than 50:50.
When I throw a die, I do know how many sides that die has and thus I can establish the relative probabilities of any given side coming up.
Do you?
Only when you know the possibilities can you calculate the probabilities. If you don't know the possibilities then you are guessing\assuming based on your knowledge and biases, but this is an opinion, not a calculation.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : 4th case.
Edited by RAZD, : clrty

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 875 by Rahvin, posted 02-05-2011 6:52 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 886 by crashfrog, posted 02-06-2011 1:34 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 914 by Rahvin, posted 02-07-2011 11:51 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 911 of 1725 (603692)
02-06-2011 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 886 by crashfrog
02-06-2011 1:34 PM


Re: possibilities and probabilities
Thanks crashfrog,
This evinces a faulty understanding of probability, most notably the popular myth that the probabilities of things that happened in the past are bivalent; i.e. "1 if they happened" and "0 if they didn't."
Really? So creationist probability calculations on the possibility of life are worth something (if they do the calculations right - how do you know what is right?)?
The original question was whether there was a pen on the desk, so the possibilities are (a) that the pen is on the desk and (b) that the pen is not on the desk. That's as clear as the flip of a coin being heads or tails, and unrelated to time ...
Probability is a comparison between outcomes and the outcome space, and the equations for that have no term for time.
Really?
If the pen is on the desk from noon to midnight and not on the desk from midnight to noon, what is the probability that you will observe the pen is on the desk? According to you the probability is both 1 and 0, that the pen is on the desk and not on the desk at the same time ... an obvious contradiction, yes?
You get to look for one minute, time not of your choosing (you say it is irrelevant): what is the probability that you will see the pen?
Probability is based on the comparison between outcomes and the outcome space. Only in the most textbook cases can the outcome space be fully known but that's not necessary in establishing probability to a significant degree of reliability; ...
Assuming that you know the most likely probabilities because you assume you know most of the possibilities and assuming that you know enough to ignore the remaining possibilities.
If you don't know the outcome space -- all the possibilities -- then you are assuming that your knowledge is complete enough to make a decision.
... the outcome space is dominated, after all, by the most likely probabilities.
Which doesn't necessarily mean you can make valid conclusions from the possibilities that you consider. Once again we have the pen on the desk example, where we now have these possibilities:
  1. the pen could be on the desk
  2. the pen could be near the desk
  3. the pen could be very far from the desk, but possible to see with current observation abilities
  4. the pen could be beyond the reach of current scientific ability to observe
  5. the pen does not exist
What is the probability that the pen will be observed on the desk? I get 1/5 or 20%.
If the pen is not observed then what is the probability that it does not exist? I get 1/4 or 25%
What is the probability that the pen exists even though it is not observed? I get 3/4 or 75%
In this case your outcome space is dominated by the non-observation of the pen and your outcome space is dominated by the existence of the pen.
However, if you only consider possibilities (1) and (5),
... because considering other possibilities is "not necessary in establishing probability to a significant degree of reliability"
... because "the outcome space is dominated ... by the most likely probabilities"
... which you assume to be either (1) or (5)
... then the failure to observe the pen on the desk leaves you with 1 apparent remaining possibility being considered, and this will be calculated as 1 or 100% probability that the pen does not exist.
This leads you to the conclusion (because "the outcome space is dominated ... by the most likely probabilities) that the existence of the pen is "highly unlikely" -- a false conclusion, because other possibilities have not properly been included in the calculation.
In this case your outcome space is dominated by the non-observation of the pen AND your outcome space is dominated by the existence of the pen. In this case the actual result with the highest probability is that the pen does exist but that you do not observe it: the existence of the pen is "highly likely" based on this evaluation.
And yet, curiously, there are still problems with the calculation. The possibility that the pen exists and the possibility that the pen does not exist could be equal (either one or the other is true, the flip of a coin, 50:50), yet here we see the outcome space is dominated by the existence of the pen. It is not enough just to list a number of possibilities, but that you phrase them properly. In this case you have:
  1. the pen could be observed
  2. the pen could exist but is not observed
  3. the pen does not exist
Then when you do not see the pen you have two remaining possibilities, (a) that it exists but is not (yet) observed, and (b) that it does not exist. This gives us the correct answer for the example as stated, but rather obviously (to me anyway), none of these three conclusions ("highly unlikely" or "highly likely" or 50:50) can be considered any more valid than the other.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics - Wikipedia
quote:
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments, and the tendency of people to disparage statistics that do not support their positions. It is also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent's point.
The term was popularised in the United States by Mark Twain (among others), ...
I would also include probability calculations where you do not know all the possibilities.
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it is just evidence of an absence of evidence.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 886 by crashfrog, posted 02-06-2011 1:34 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 912 by crashfrog, posted 02-06-2011 9:06 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 941 of 1725 (603814)
02-07-2011 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 785 by onifre
02-03-2011 1:36 PM


Re: one question three answers
Hi onifre, let's try again
That's fine. I just wanted to know if you only saw two possible choices, as I do. I didn't think there were more.
I could experience communication from a supernatural entity without experiencing the entity in question, so yes the information would have to be conveyed from a supernatural source but it is not necessary to experience the source to experience the message.
We do this everyday when posting here: we experience the communication without experiencing the communicator. We could make assumptions about the communicator but we could not know nor would we need to assume that it was an imagined experience nor a made up one.
This would be like the meteor event, you have evidence of the event, but not of the cause. It could be a meteor or it could be "Thor's hammer, Mjollnir" smiting the earth.
Lets then break that down:
You mean make assumptions about what we know ...
The 2nd however, requires two essential pieces of evidence - starting with first, the evidence for supernatural beings, and second, the evidence that humans can actually experience them.
But we already have plenty of evidence of the supernatural, or there would not be religions, it is just not scientifically validated.
Also, this aspect of the equation requires that the supernatural actually exists and can be experienced.
Again, it would be possible to experience communication without experiencing the source.
Would you agree with my assessment up to this point?
I would agree that you are assuming the consequent.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 785 by onifre, posted 02-03-2011 1:36 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 942 by Rahvin, posted 02-07-2011 8:15 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1034 by onifre, posted 02-12-2011 1:43 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 945 of 1725 (603820)
02-07-2011 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 912 by crashfrog
02-06-2011 9:06 PM


Re: possibilities and probabilities
Hi crashfrog,
A coin has only one head and one tails, and the head and tails of a coin are the same size. In a fair flip of the coin, the heads outcome is equiprobable with the tails outcome. That's the reason for the 50/50 odds, not the fact that a coin has only two faces. An unbalanced coin also has only two faces, but by definition its odds are not 50/50; an unbalanced coin favors heads or tails to some extent.
Indeed, which means you need to know that possibility before assuming that the 50:50 split is correct. If you don't know the possibilities you cannot assume you can calculate the probabilities accurately.
No, I specifically stated that the probability is not "both 1 and 0",
You said the probability was independent of time, thus both had to be true and false at the same time, unless you include time in the outcome space.
The probability you're asking for is "is one minute out of the day at random either between noon and midnight, or between midnight and noon?" and the answer to that is 50/50, since half of a day's minutes are between noon and midnight and the other half are between midnight and noon.
Which includes time factored into the outcome space. The conclusion I have is that it is not necessary that time be included but it is also not necessary that time be excluded: it all comes down to how you define the parameters for the outcome space possibilities before you make your calculations of probability within that space.
Do you see how your unwarranted assumption of equiprobability of all outcomes is faulty, now?
Curiously, you had to intentionally manipulate your outcome space to achieve this result, which, amusingly, proves my point that you need to know the possibilities before you can calculate the possibilities.
Right, but those possibilities are not equiprobable. Given that the pen is somewhere in the room, the probability that the pen is on the desk is the area of the desk divided by the area of the room.
Even if they are of equal area, there could be a higher probability that the pen will reside at the lower elevation of the floor than stay on the desk even though it was placed there.
And ... in other words, that means you cannot assume that the failure to see the pen on the desk top is due to the pen not existing, because there is a higher probability that it won't be observed when it does exist.
Now we can continue this ad nauseum, or we can agree that we need to know the possibilities to know how to define the outcome space for the calculations, or the results are constrained to only apply within the defined outcome space, and it is limited by your knowledge of the possibilities. Your coin example makes this abundantly clear, thank you. Therefore you can not make an accurate calculation if there are possibilities that are not included, because they may, like you weighted coin, completely bollix your assumed probability space to the point that your calculation is completely at odds with reality.
At best you can make a tentative conclusion based on your opinion of the possibilities of the outcome space. You either rely on assumption or you know all the possibilities.
Opinion and assumption do not necessarily lead to valid calculations and conclusions, and when they do it is more often by luck than by accuracy. So no, you cannot conclude that one result is "highly likely" compared to another based on assumptions and opinions without objective empirical evidence that shows that the possibility space actually is different for one compared to the other.
This is what you did when you rewrote the pen on the desk example:
Right, but those possibilities are not equiprobable. Given that the pen is somewhere in the room, the probability that the pen is on the desk is the area of the desk divided by the area of the room.
When you know the different areas, the objective empirical evidence that the possibility space for pen-on-desk is different from the possibility space for pen-not-on-desk, then you can calculate the probabilities ... assuming no other variables come into the mix. The area of the room could be 1000 times the area of the desk, and you could assume a random distribution of the pen around the desk you would not get better than 50% probability of the pen being on the desk.
Absence of evidence is always evidence of absence, because when things are absent, the leave an absence of evidence of their existence. This is a principle that everyone understands to be true; it's how they know when to go to the store for milk - the absence of evidence for the presence of milk in their fridge.
Straggler will be amused (or should be by this time) to see another atheist citing the absence of evidence as evidence of absence. I'll put you down for a (7) because "Absence of evidence is always evidence of absence" ...
quote:
Message 17: As a result of the logical analysis (see Message 508 of the Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith? thread) we have:
  1. Absolute Theist: knows god/s exist. (logically invalid position)
  2. Strong Theist: the existence of god/s is more likely than not. (logically invalid position)
  3. Weak Theist: the existence of god/s is possible, maybe likely, but not sure. (logically valid position)
  4. Agnostic: god/s may exist or they may not, there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other. (logically valid position)
  5. Weak Atheist: the non-existence of gods is possible, maybe likely, but not sure. (logically valid position)
  6. Strong Atheist: the non-existence of god/s is more likely than not. (logically invalid position)
  7. Absolute Atheist: knows that god/s do not exist. (logically invalid position)

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is simply a popular misunderstanding of what evidence is.
LOL.
Statistics notes: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence | The BMJ
quote:
Statistics notes: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
That's a science article btw ...
or, cutting to the chase ...
Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia,
Evidence of absence - Wikipedia
quote:
Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is: there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to "prove" the proposition to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four; with (3) being unknown between true or false; and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). And finally, any action taken, based upon such a pseudo "proof" is fallaciously valid, that is, it is being asserted to be valid based upon a fallacy.[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
http://theautonomist.com/.../permanent/fallacies.php#adignor
quote:
Examples:
"It has never been proved, nor can it be, that clairvoyance does not exist, therefore, it must exist." "It has never been proved, nor can it be, that clairvoyance exists, therefore, it cannot exist."
It amuses me that this fallacy is used both pro and con. And so it goes and so it goes.
Certainly your assertion that "Absence of evidence is always evidence of absence" has been falsified.
On it's own it is a logical fallacy, an argument from ignorance.
Evidence that absence was observed everywhere you have looked is evidence of absence everywhere you looked. All you need to do is assume you have looked everywhere ...
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 912 by crashfrog, posted 02-06-2011 9:06 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 947 by crashfrog, posted 02-07-2011 10:14 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1033 by Straggler, posted 02-12-2011 4:48 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 946 of 1725 (603823)
02-07-2011 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 866 by xongsmith
02-05-2011 12:49 PM


Re: How I see the strong confirmation bias
Hi xongsmith, thanks
None of the above...you just shrug & wait, accepting that you don't know.
And this would cover most of the cases, imho, as there are a lot of people that have made unconfirmed untested claims. Of course ones lost to history may never be known, and the best we can do is deal with the evidence in the here and now.
Seems the only instance listed so far is my listing of the FSM.
sadly so, and even here we have the problem of starting with a made up concept first ...
Making something up and then claiming and demonstrating it is made up is the epitomy of stupidity in this issue.
Worse, it is a logical fallacy,
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/begging.htm
quote:
The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises. Often, the conclusion is simply restated in the premises in a slightly different form.
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/affirm.htm
quote:
Any argument of the following form is invalid:
If A then B
B
Therefore, A
If it is a supernatural concept then it is made up
{X} is made up
Therefore it is a supernatural concept that is made up
But any number of made up concepts are not supernatural, so supernaturalness needs to be demonstrated not just assumed.
If you start with a concept that you make up, then you are starting with what you want to conclude (also known as begging the question) but haven't shown that it
http://theautonomist.com/.../permanent/fallacies.php#begging
quote:
Begging the question fallacy - Advancing an argument on the basis of statements which are assumed but need themselves to be proved, or assuming the conclusion or part of the conclusion in the premises of an argument. (Sometimes called circular reasoning.)
(bluegenes) made up concept {X}
(bluegenes) claims that it is a supernatural entity
therefore {X} is a supernatural entity that has been made up
Premise 2 has not been demonstrated to be anything other than assertion. Again any number of made up concepts are not supernatural, so supernaturalness needs to be demonstrated not just assumed.
bluegenes theory boils down to this: Every supernatural being that we can show has been made up is made up.
Whoop-ti-doo. Color me unimpressed.
Worse, every concept that can be shown to be made up so far has indeed been made up, but hasn't been shown to really be a supernatural concept.
At which point it doesn't really qualify as a scientific theory as it is an oxymoron.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 866 by xongsmith, posted 02-05-2011 12:49 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 980 of 1725 (604055)
02-09-2011 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 975 by Modulous
02-09-2011 3:49 PM


what's one logical fallacy when you can have another ...
Hi Modulus,
I continue to be surprised that people will assert the maxim as if it were some absolute truth seemingly just because it has a nice ring to it. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is cool to say too...
Properly speaking, the absence of evidence is not by itself (negative) evidence (of absence), rather it is evidence of the absence of (positive) evidence - in the areas where evidence has been sought, and with the methodology\technology used to look for (positive) evidence.
If you only look in area {A} and do not find positive evidence, that means that positive evidence is currently not available within area {A}, it says nothing about positive or negative evidence in area {B} ≠ {A} nor about positive or negative evidence in area {A} at different times or with different methodology\technology/s.
As an example, you could say (as an hypothetical analogy) that the causes of disease before we were capable of seeing\observing bacteria, were looked for with the current (then) technology and no natural source was found. Because disease was observed, and lives were at stake, they then concluded that the absence of evidence for a natural cause was evidence of absence of a natural cause, and thus posited a supernatural cause. When the technology allowed a different methodology that included observation and experimentation with bacteria, then a natural cause was found.
Now a theist could argue (and some have) that this just shows how a supernatural cause was implemented, the bacteria were the tool used by the supernatural cause, and the supernatural cause would explain why the bacteria were used to cause disease. This gets to the area of non-falsification, however, and also does not necessarily provide any further information of use in treating the disease/s. It also gets into trying to second guess supernatural motives, which is an endless rabbit hole on these forums.
quote:
Tragic mistakes are sometimes made in this sphere even so; but if the standard is set too high - if what is required is a conclusive proof of harmlessness that cannot ever be given--consumers will be denied what may prove to be valuable, even lifesaving, medical treatments... ... Not to draw a conclusion, in some cases, is as much a breach of correct reasoning as it would be to draw a mistaken conclusion.
Here we have a situation where lives are at stake, as opposed to a quiet armchair discussion of comparative opinions, and this changes the need to make a decision, not the accuracy of that decision. I actually addressed this situation in the discussion of Agnosticism (An Exploration Into"Agnosticism", Message 143)
quote:
question
                    |
        is there sufficient valid
     information available to decide
       |                        |
      yes                       no
       |                        |
   decide based               is a
   on empirical             decision
  valid evidence            necessary?
      (A)                  /         \
                         yes          no ... but ...
                         /            |             |
                      decide         why          make a
                     based on       decide       decision
                    inadequate      at this       anyway
                     evidence        time?       based on
                      =guess         =wait       opinion
                       (B)            (C)          (D)
Where "D" people make up their minds for no apparent reason other than it is based on their opinion of reality.
This would include people that use incomplete evidence , Confirmation Bias, Cognitive Dissonance and ide fixes, as part of their worldview. Yes, this would include a lot of theists as well as atheists.
Of course it is difficult to argue that this last category is a rational decision based on logical conclusions and sufficient empirical evidence.
When you have inadequate information for a valid conclusion and lives are at stake you will make a decision based on the information available ... and the opinions of the people making the decision regarding what they think is their best guess in the circumstance/s. Condition {B} answers the concern of needing to reach a decision when life is at stake, it does not say that the conclusion is valid, nor does it answer the concerns of those politely debating opinions in comfort of an easy-chair and a glass of their favorite beverage (aka xongsmith's scenario re how science is not done).
If lives are not at stake, then the logical position is {C} - waiting until you can have sufficient evidence to move to {A}, either with new information or new technology.
Likewise you can only calculate the probability of the absence from the lack of positive evidence within area {A} when you know the relative sizes of {A} and {B} ...
... with the probability becoming higher as {A} approaches {B}, however until the point that {A} = {B} is reached there is still a possibility that positive evidence exists within {B}, and the relative improbability is inconsequential if the truth is that positive evidence does lie in area {B} ≠ {A} no matter how large {A} is, ...
... as probability calculations, like opinions, are strangely incapable of controlling reality, they are based on properly knowing reality to be accurate, and can be highly inaccurate when reality is not known.
One thinks of the Coelacanth in the days before the modern species were found: the evidence only existed in the fossil record of shallow sea beds until ~60 million years ago. The evidence from trawling the seas of the world, and taking oceanographic samples with the then latest technology, did not show any positive evidence of extant Coelacanths, although there was evidence of other aquatic life from pre-60 million years ago (sharks etc). The actual probability of finding the modern Coelacanth was very small - using crashfrogs outcome space and probability calculations - the area occupied by the current species is a small fraction of a percentage of the available space in the oceans of the world ... and yet the truth was that Coelacanths did exist === the absence of (positive) evidence was not (negative) evidence (of absence). There are many cases where this is found to be the case.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 975 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2011 3:49 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 981 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2011 9:59 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1000 of 1725 (604205)
02-10-2011 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 981 by Modulous
02-09-2011 9:59 PM


Hi Modulous,
Properly speaking, the absence of evidence is not by itself (negative) evidence (of absence), rather it is evidence of the absence of (positive) evidence - in the areas where evidence has been sought, and with the methodology\technology used to look for (positive) evidence.
If you only look in area {A} and do not find positive evidence, that means that positive evidence is currently not available within area {A}
And we're talking about area {A} only. When we look there are two hypothesis
1. The pen is on the desk (evidence: I can see a pen)
2. The pen is not on the desk (evidence: I can not seen a pen on the desk, and I have reason to suppose it is likely that if a pen was present I'd see it).
The absence of the evidence for 1 just happens to be the evidence for 2.
It's really basic logic.
In other words: ... the absence of evidence is not by itself (negative) evidence (of absence), rather it is evidence of the absence of (positive) evidence - in the areas where evidence has been sought, and with the methodology\technology used to look for (positive) evidence" -- curiously, it really is basic logic.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 981 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2011 9:59 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1002 by Rahvin, posted 02-10-2011 2:11 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1008 by Blue Jay, posted 02-10-2011 2:44 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1012 by Modulous, posted 02-10-2011 4:06 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1005 of 1725 (604221)
02-10-2011 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 948 by Straggler
02-08-2011 6:16 AM


Re: Subjective "Evidence" - Surely Not?
Hi Straggler, I wondered how long it would take you to misunderstand this argument.
In the context of the great debate at hand the question of course is whether or not supernatural beings can legitimately be concluded to be the cause of such experiences.
Actually the context of the debate is whether or not bluegenes can substantiate a single one of his assertions, including that he actually has a theory rather than an hypothesis based on assumption/s, bias/es and wishful thinking.
In that context, he has made the claim that human imagination is the only source of supernatural beings.
Once you make this claim, then it is incumbent on you to show that existing religious documents, and reports of religious experiences documenting supernatural sources, cannot be due to supernatural communications. You cannot ignore these documents and then assume that your conclusion has any validity.
Similarly if you were investigating an historical event you could not ignore existing historical documents and reports concerning the event and make an assumption that your conclusion is valid.
If one is going to claim that supernatural beings are produced by human imagination and not be experience of supernatural beings or communications from them, then you need to have a process\methodology to differentiate one from the other, not just assume your conclusion.
I find it remarkable that you keep feeling the need to raise such "evidence" in the context of discussions about supernatural beings given your rather forthright stance on the absence of any link between the two.
The purpose of the long discussion about subjective evidence was to demonstrate that (a) unverified subjective experiences do exist and (b) they can be used to suggest possibilities for further investigation.
This conclusion of the value of subjective evidence has nothing to do with deities, but everything to do with the value of subjective evidence.
As I recall, you were dragged kicking and screaming to the inevitable conclusion that subjective evidence can be used to suggest possibilities.
I had to post that banner so that you could be induced to talk about other subjective experiences, where you finally admitted that they could be used to suggest possibilities for further investigation, rather than obsessively concentrate on deities.
And don't call me, Shirley.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 948 by Straggler, posted 02-08-2011 6:16 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1009 by Straggler, posted 02-10-2011 2:47 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1035 by Straggler, posted 02-13-2011 5:49 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1038 by Straggler, posted 02-21-2011 4:27 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1007 of 1725 (604226)
02-10-2011 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 963 by Adminnemooseus
02-09-2011 2:35 AM


Re: What "Great Debate" topic is this related to?
Hi Adminnemooseus, my apologies for getting involved on this thread.
Personally I think it is terminally off-topic (re comments on great debates) and has been for some time.
Also, I think each great debate should have a specific peanut gallery (see Peanut Gallery -- for petrophysics vs RAZD debate -- ONLY and Peanut Gallery for the "Evidence" Great Debate thread).
To keep in the spirit of Peanut Gallery for the "Evidence" Great Debate thread I will cease on this thread, and anyone who wants to discuss a topic with me can start a new thread, although I do think most of these issues have been beaten to death.
Whether you close this monster thread and start a new Peanut Gallery for the "bluegenes hypothesis" Great Debate is your call, but it would provide an opportunity to refocus.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 963 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-09-2011 2:35 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1036 by Straggler, posted 02-18-2011 2:42 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1039 of 1725 (605633)
02-21-2011 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1038 by Straggler
02-21-2011 4:27 AM


Reality Check, please.
Hi straggler, still struggling to understand or still just refusing to?
Given that you said your argument on subjective evidence had "NOTHING" to do with such entities.
First, note that my position on the value of subjective evidence does not depend on the existence one way or the other of god/s. That has not changed, and is not likely to.
In our discussion/s on the value of subjective evidence I specifically excluded god/s to focus on the universal value of subjective evidence, and thereby forced you to concede that it indeed had some value -- as a possibility that would require further investigation to be confirmed.
How strange that "subjective evidence" is the key feature of your position in all 3 of them.
Really?
It is presented in two out of three, as an example of the kinds of arguments other people have made. I am participating in those debates as devil's advocate against their various positions, not in any way in justification of my position or beliefs.
But you should also note that in those cases, all I am saying is that the subjective evidence is just as valid as other subjective evidence, AND that it cannot be used to make conclusions regarding the existence or not of god/s, just as a possibility that would require further investigation to be confirmed - for the pro stance - or that needs to be invalidated for the con stance.
Now, I have been asked to not participate on this thread, so you need to find another way to troll me. Or be civil and try to understand instead of leaping to false concussions.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : color

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1038 by Straggler, posted 02-21-2011 4:27 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1040 by Straggler, posted 02-21-2011 11:46 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1051 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2011 12:56 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024