On the Absence of Evidence

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is important to understand that

• The absence of proof is not proof of absence. and
• The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

are not equivalent statements. The first is true. The second is false.

This absence of evidence is, in fact, evidence. Its probative value is a function of the likelihood that such evidence should be absent. So, for example, I would argue that

• The absence of extra-biblical evidence of an historical Jesus is more interesting than probative.
• The absence of extra-biblical evidence of an Exodus/Conquest is compelling.
• The absence of any evidence for a bull fight in your bathroom is definitive.

Proof, on the other hand, is more appropriate to the domains of logic, math, and liquor.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Agreed, Deut.

It is folly to put any sort of trust in something which cannot be validated by anything concrete.

 

[HelpMe]

nothing is concrete.could you guys deck some frubals from me?

 

[Ceridwen018]

Perhaps not, HelpMe, however some things are more concrete than others.

...you want your frubals taken away?

 

[HelpMe]

'dim' is more 'pitch black' than 'brightness'.but 'dim' is still not 'pitch black', at all.

yea

 

[Ceridwen018]

'dim' is more 'pitch black' than 'brightness'.but 'dim' is still not 'pitch black', at all.

yea

"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul"

 

[Ceridwen018]

C'mon guys, this is a big issue. Let's keep this baby going!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Deut you've done it again. I completely agree--absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It might be strong or weak evidence, but it is evidence.

The absence of extra-biblical evidence of an historical Jesus is more interesting than probative.
The absence of extra-biblical evidence of an Exodus/Conquest is compelling.
The absence of any evidence for a bull fight in your bathroom is definitive.

Notice that the absence of evidence becomes more compelling as the claim in question makes more specific observable predictions. If an historical Jesus existed, we may or may not expect to see extra-biblical evidence. However, if there were a bull fight in my bathroom, certainly I would expect to see and hear specific things within a specific location. That all the numerous specific predictions of this claim fail is, as Deut said, definitive.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I'd like to add, this is precisely why scientific theories must make specific predictions. Caims like the existence of a transcendental god are unscientific because they do not make specific predictions: if a transcendental god existed, we would expect to see no evidence. If a transcendental god did not exist, we would expect to see no evidence. Such claims are out of the scope of science because the absense of evidence is no longer compelling evidence of absence, and falsification is impossible.

 

[Lightkeeper]

C'mon guys, this is a big issue. Let's keep this baby going!

It might help if this is in a debate forum. This is a discussion forum.

 

[HelpMe]

"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul"

instead of returning the favor, i'll ask that i be warned now.