Jump to content

Talk:Evidence of absence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability

[edit]

My Google Books searches suggested that this is the second half of an aphorism about the "absence of evidence", and did not convince me that the topic of evidence of absence could make an encyclopedia article in its own right.

If it is salvageable (and I am not convinced it is) then could it be re-worked to become a section of the Negative proof article?

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll just redirect it for now.--Woland (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where do we stand now? There is a proposal to redirect Negative proof to other closely related articles, Argument from ignorance and Argument from silence, either of which may be a suitable home for the topic of Evidence of absence. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The merge idea won't help the encyclopedia. These are sufficiently distinct to warrant separate articles.
The least important reason for that is that these concepts describe different things, under the standard understanding of the word 'evidence'. E.g., in mathematics. If I argue that there must be Riemann zeros off the real = 0.5 line, because the hypothesis that there are not is unproven then I'm mostly making an argument from ignorance. Most mathematicians would not equate that with an argument based on the numerical absence of evidence (although, in practice, such empirical methods [convince some people] of the truth of various conjectures).
The ideas are linked, but are treated from different perspectives within Wikipedia categories, and have different histories and uses.
In the mean-time, nobody has made any contributions to this debate for two years -EVIDENCE OF an ABSENCE of people now endorsing merger (I'd say). The warning boxes about mergers might be responsible for the retarded development in these pages, and unless positive arguments are offered in support, those boxes should be taken down. I'll take the continued presence of the warnings as evidence that there is no automated life-span on those boxes, and that they must be manually removed.
--Wragge (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely strongly agree with Wragge above. I do not want to have anything to do with an encyclopedia that will spend 1000's of pages on detail episode lists of reality television shows without sparing a page for one of the basic rules of logic. Please double-check both articles before claiming that this and Argument from Ignorance are the same topic; if you have specific concerns after that I would be happy to address (I am honestly not sure how to respond to the claim that they are identical ...) Jaydubya93 (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Argument from ignorance has been rewritten and restructured to include some of these Ideas. Agenzen (talk) 05:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the opinions above that a merger would not help the encyclopedia . Many edits that distinguish the two concepts, and provide useful links, have been made since the original suggestion of merging. If there are no objections, I would like to remove the Merger tag in a few days.-Tesseract2 (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite universe comment

[edit]

I recently removed a comment from an image caption. The caption was discussing Hales' argument that the idea of certain proof in practice must be rejected; both for claims of a thing's existence as well as other claims of non-existence. That is, we must deal with induction and probability. The comment added "It is not clear how this would apply to a hypothetically infinite universe where existence would often be provable but not non-existence."

This comment confuses me. In theory, an infinite universe would mean that everything that is possible DOES occur. Sure. But the accompanying text just explained why inductions ar fallible, and why existence is not strictly provable, regardless of whether the universe is infinite. In other words, we could never be certain of what is possible, nor what is true. Or am I missing something?-Tesseract2(talk) 05:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In theory, an infinite universe would mean that everything that is possible DOES occur."
What warrants this conclusion? 142.90.85.163 (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Caption

[edit]

The caption on the picture of the empty field mentions dragons. While this is a comical idea, the definition of dragon (being a mythical creature) may be open to interpretation, ie. very very small, or invisible etc. Wouldn't it be more prudent to suggest there are no elephants in the field? They have a clear definition, and still a rather comical hypothesis. I think the caption tries to take on the (non-)existence of dragons as well as the absence of a particular thing in the field, which is not necessary and arguably ambiguous for illustrating the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.49.156 (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An astute observation. Edits made!-Tesseract2(talk) 03:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original Quote?

[edit]

I think the article should reference that Gin Rummy from The Boondocks originally quoted "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence". --69.136.5.52 (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done!-Tesseract2(talk) 13:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the page now does not mention "boondocks" in any sense. That's good, because the quotation is a lot older than that anyway. --Thnidu (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Martin Rees has been quoted as saying this, but that may be more recent. Kortoso (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of absence

[edit]

Articles (meaning/definition) :

Boondocks (disambiguation) ← The Boondocks

You can see there today:
Boondocks are remote, usually brushy areas. It may also refer to:
  • I have copied here all the Boondocks (disambiguation) article'cause I don't know which is the one of these at the above sentence: "I think the article should reference that Gin Rummy from The Boondocks originally quoted "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence".

--PLA y Grande Covián (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Citation needed"?

[edit]

"Some claims about gods or their actions can be falsified.[citation needed]" - Eh? What is controversial or requires citing in this sentence? For example, the claim that the god Helios pulls the chariot of the sun across the sky every day can be tested and falsified.

194.81.223.66 (talk) 12:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone felt like this was somehow a non-theist position. The idea that many people who believe in God argue on behalf of that idea being falsifiable may be beyond some people. But yeah these incredibly basic logical concepts are difficult to respond to criticisms of using the tried and true Wikipedia responses. I loathe the idea of having to "reach a consensus" on your quote above (and fear the results for the sake of the project, frankly). (ref) Foundations of all Analytic and Empirical Knowledge (/ref) ? Jaydubya93 (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that sentence is no longer in the article, but its an issue where more clarification was needed. "Some claims about gods or their actions are not falsifiable." If we use these sentences interchangeably it tells us nothing. Without any given intent to the sentence, it probably read to the editor in question as a broad-face attack on 'theism'. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Citation Needed:

[edit]

Section - Proving a Negative "There can be multiple claims within a debate, nevertheless, whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim." This comment does not seem to require any citation as burden of proof is a legal maxim and its definition follows the statement provided. Burden of proof is defined by wiki in its related article, "The burden of proof is always on the person who brings a claim in a dispute." This is provided without citation in the definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

Secondarily, in MY OPINION only, the rising usage of "citation needed" across wiki increasingly appears to be used as an informal thumbs down or "harrumph" without comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7B24:4D50:6934:1614:33BC:6FFF (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jab at alternative medicine

[edit]

'Overview', second paragraph:

Whilst it serves as a reasonable example of the concept under discussion, one gets the feeling that the author was deliberately trying to misrepresent what proponents of alternative medicine say in response to arguments against them. This misinterpretation is widely used to attack alternative medicine, which is unfortunate because it distracts from the more serious questions of the burden of proof and what claims should be made to patients.

Let P be "There is no (valid scientific) evidence for the medicine".

Let Q be "The medicine works."

Very few people are stupid enough to claim that given ( ¬Q -> P and ¬P ) then Q. What they are doing is responding to the people who are loudly declaring ¬Q and stating P, which makes it sound as though they are saying

P -> ¬Q.

People who wish to point out that this is false then say that the statement ( P -> ¬Q ) does not follow from the fact that ( ¬Q -> P ), and in fact,

P -> (Q v ¬Q) as opposed to P -> ¬Q.

They then get accused of claiming ( ¬P -> Q ). Whether they should be claiming Q is another matter, as is the issue of the burden of proof.

137.222.220.104 (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This person said "Very few people are stupid enough to claim that given ( ¬Q -> P and ¬P ) then Q." I am warning people who read this. This is wrong :

"( ¬Q -> P and ¬P ) then Q" is a valid theorem according to axiom of contra-position and conjunction. Here is the proof:

1.(¬Q -> P) -> (¬P -> Q)

2.( ¬Q -> P and ¬P ) -> ( (¬P -> Q) and ¬P )

3.( ¬P -> Q and ¬P ) -> Q

4.( ¬Q -> P and ¬P ) -> Q

Hence "( ¬Q -> P and ¬P ) -> Q" is a valid theorem.

Any evidence of quality in this article?

[edit]

Pretty hopeless article at the moment, a large amount of WP:OR, large chunks of unsourced text, and obvious errors as well. The only part that may actually be correct is the Boondocks reference! Needs a rewrite and much better sources... History2007 (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, if you feel like rolling up your sleeves, go ahead! Lova Falk talk 08:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not really feel like it - so I will wait a while to see if someone else will fix it, then if not maybe... A nice wire transfer would however speed up my efforts.... History2007 (talk) 10:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an open source logic project. You should probably try the Logic Factory up the road to see if theyre hiring. Jaydubya93 (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't prove a negative

[edit]

This Error is propagating across the internet, because of this article. People are beginning to say "ha you can prove SOME negatives so this rule doesn't hold". Actually "You can't prove a negative" is actually common short hand for “you can’t prove a universal negative,” or better "existential negative". In other words, you cannot prove that some hypothetical does not exist, anywhere in the universe, because that would require that you be able to look everywhere at the same moment. And, of course, if the hypothetical something, in question is claimed to be invisible and undetectable by any means, in principle, it gets even sillier to attempt to disprove that hypothetical's existence. e.g. God or telepathy etc.Stewgreen2 (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed factual, style and synthesis tags

[edit]

The factual tag is nonsensical. The synthesis tag has been addressed since its posting 3 years ago and the style tag is unsupported by anything on the talk page. As there is active discussion on this talk page, please support further tag postings with specific factual claims here on the talk page so they can be addressed by the community. Of course everyone is also welcome to correct the article directly rather than place tags for others to correct the article. Finally, if you want to delete or merge this article then open an Rfc of Afd. No consensus has been reached here regarding either after 4 years of somewhat nebulous complaints (while the overall content of the article has improved over that same time period). Jaydubya93 (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is under threat - anti-intellectualism detected - theist alert

[edit]

I am new to Wikipedia, as a contributor anyway. I have been an avid reader for it's entire existence. This article has induced me to do something because I believe it has been altered by people with anti-intellectual interests. I've read the entire "Contributing to Wikipedia" FAQ but do not see how I can help repair this article. Not sure I'm qualified to create it all on my own but this needs to be fixed. psion (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Psion13, and welcome to Wikipedia! The best approach to fixing a Wikipedia page is often to try it yourself. If anyone thinks the article was better before, they will undo or edit your changes and then the next step is to start a discussion. This approach has the advantage of avoiding unnecessary process if nobody objects.
Just the fact that you've been reading over information pages like the FAQ is more than many first-time contributors do. :-) Please let me know if there are any questions I can answer for you - I'm happy to help. Sunrise (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alice and her pies

[edit]

My first thought on reading that example was: "Maybe she did bake a pie but some third party stole it, and that's why it isn't on the window-sill!" Okay, it's a bit silly, but I wonder if there's some better example less amenable to that kind of issue. Equinox (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proving a negative is a mess

[edit]

The section, Proving a negative, is a disaster. It is largely the opinion of a single philosopher, and seems contrary to the opinion of the scientific establishment on this topic. I came across is because someone sent it to me to prove his point... he was arguing that you can say there is a god because he cannot be disproved! I started by adding CN and a section flag, but much work is needed here. RobP (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? "The opinion of a single philosopher"—fine, that's fixable. But how is it contrary to the scientific establishment? What is the opinion of the scientific establishment? How do you know that? FRuDIxAFLG (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional probability

[edit]

Here is my justification for my recent edits, which were reverted: The introduction to the article says "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I don't mind that it says this, since it's a common expression. But as long as we include it, we ought to at least mention the fact that it's not true most of the time. (See the diff.)

The only time when absence of evidence truly is not evidence of absence (in the sense described in the diff) is when the evidence in question is not expected at all, e.g. no attempt has been made to find any. (But notice that even in this situation it may be possible to reason about the probability of an attempt.) If other editors think this is an important exception then we can explain it in the article.

Perhaps other editors think this article should be taken in a completely different direction, and that direction does not involve probability. That may be sensible, but if that is the case then the title of the article should be changed to be more specific.

FRuDIxAFLG (talk)

The lede of the article mentions the aphorism as an explanation for the title of the article. It's not claiming the aphorism is true. Maybe this can be made more clear by changing its wording. As for your sources, I like them and would like to include them in this article. It's just that what you added to the lede acts like it is disagreeing with something that was never claimed in the article in the first place. Per the traditional aphorism, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", positive evidence of this kind is distinct from a lack of evidence or ignorance. What this is saying is that "absence of evidence" is a distinct concept from "evidence of absence". It is NOT saying "you can't prove a negative" or "you can't use absence of evidence to support the improbability of a claim". Indeed, most of the article is dedicated to debunking these claims. I'd be fine with including the section you added, except the topmost part needs to be understandable by a layperson. But the lede part you added isn't an improvement IMO MarshallKe (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Proof and evidence" deleted

[edit]

I deleted the Proof and evidence section because it was just a couple of quotes with no obvious link to the rest of the article. And one of them was a HUGE quote from an old version of a SEP article. The problem of induction can probably be included here somehow, but I'm not sure where right now. FRuDIxAFLG (talk) 00:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes the evidence is not missing my daughter take some things into storage the strand bible could be there. I know it is in my account. As paid. That is all that matters to me. I real about study tools to study God's word and he know that is all that matter. 2601:2C1:4382:6480:65CF:3FDC:7FC5:1BEB (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evidence_of_absence&oldid=1259897103"