Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

>I'm not sure what point you're trying to make
That in the context of that quote the scientific method is limited.

Carl Sagan isn't saying we can affirmatively say something without evidence, just that because we can't prove something directly doesn't mean it's not true. Did you just take some intro philosophy course and think you're an expert or something? You're not making a useful point

You're LITERALLY just agreeing with the OP.

Let X be some proposition and let E be evidence for that proposition such that

P(X|E) > P(X)

P(~X|~E) = P(~X) P(~E|~X) / P(~E)

P(~X|~E) > P(~X) when

P(~E|~X) / P(~E) > 1

P(~E|~X) > P(~E)

P(~E|~X) > P(~E|X)

P(E|~X) < P(E|X)

So if aliens existing implies that evidence for their existence is more likely to exist, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. QED.

What is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The scientific method draws conclusions without evidence everyday, otherwise it could not function.

you clearly don't understand the scientific method if you are willing to substitute it for simplified statements like this.

interesting.

>So if aliens existing implies that evidence for their existence is more likely to exist
that's a big "if"

It's not that people don't get that the absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence.

It's that people try to force an absence of counterevidence as evidence of PRESENCE and shit up threads.

I don't mind people that say "We don't have proof of x but I believe it's out there somewhere", I dislike when people are like X IS REAL DISPROVE ME FAGGOTS.

>you cant disprove the existence of my imaginary magic cloud father therefore I choose to believe he is real

do you also choose to believe in the existence of literally every possible thing that might exist? its literally an infinite list of possible things and its irrational to pick one over any other.

youtu.be/fZpJ7yUPwdU?t=2m38s

>>you cant disprove the existence of my imaginary magic cloud father therefore I choose to believe he is real
Nice strawman, try learning to read brainlet.

as if you weren't? laughable! you're not fooling anyone.

take a (you)

As if I wasn't what? Your point would only be relevant if the picture said 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so you should believe in what we lack evidence for.'

>take a (you)

If they're within the galactic cluster, we can reach them

But if a hypothesis predicts that certain evidence would be available if it were true, you can look for said evidence -- and, not finding it, begin to suspect the hypothesis is false. A hypothesis that repeatedly predicts evidence that never is detected can be put on the back shelf.

Note: This is not specifically speaking to the Aliums case OP posts about, since there is no real agreement whether the "There are aliums" hypothesis would result in evidence we can detect. Perhaps we would expect a likelihood of no evidence whether the hypothesis is true or not.

How is that a big if? It's essentially saying that aliens are empirically discoverable.

Theoretically yes, but if aliens are far enough away it's incredibly unlikely we'll ever have the technology to detect them

>But if a hypothesis predicts that certain evidence would be available if it were true, you can look for said evidence -- and, not finding it, begin to suspect the hypothesis is false.
Results of an experiment are evidence, whether you find something to contradict the null hypothesis or not.

That's irrelevant since aliens being far away would not made evidence less likely than if they did not exist at all. If they didn't exist at all it's like they are infinitely far away.

Basically, aliens would have to be actively destroying evidence of their existence in order for the absence of evidence to not be evidence of their absence.

>That's irrelevant since aliens being far away would not made evidence less likely than if they did not exist at all.
Evidence existing != evidence being practically obtainable

Again that's irrelevant to what we're discussing. Aliens being far away dies not make evidence less obtainable than if they did not exist at all.

>Aliens being far away dies not make evidence less obtainable than if they did not exist at all.
Did I say that?

>Veeky Forumsentists who don't understand the Veeky Forumsentific method
Is that a jab at yourself? Because absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. Sometimes it it strong evidence and sometimes it is weak evidence, but it's always nonzero evidence.

>Theoretically yes, but if aliens are far enough away it's incredibly unlikely we'll ever have the technology to detect them

What does that have to do with evidence of far away aliens being less obtainable than if they did not exist at all?

>Because absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.
[citation needed]

Did you even read the post you originally replied to?

Yes, empirically discoverable in practice != empirically discoverable in theory.

Again, what does that have to with the fact that absence of evidence is evidence of absence if aliens existing implies that evidence for their existence is more likely to exist. Realize that evidence existing and evidence being found are interchangeable in this context, since it's a conditional probability.

>Realize that evidence existing and evidence being found are interchangeable in this context
Evidence can't be found without humans to find it, regardless of existence.

OK when you want to reply to what I'm saying and not just made random points, tell me.

>OK when you want to reply to what I'm saying and not just made random points, tell me.
see

>2017
>still no alien contact
Keep dreaming.

>mistakenly certain that aliens don't exist.

Who even claims this? It's the opposite that is by far the most prevalent view, that alien life is essentially guaranteed when there is absolutely no reason to believe that is the case.

>Who even claims this?
Glass-half-empty "scientists" who don't understand the scientific method

Which I guess is the point I was trying to make in a more colloquial manner. Negative results, under some circumstances, may in fact BE evidence to help confirm a hypothesis.

"it hasn't happened yet so it'll never happen"
Great argument.

>Negative results, under some circumstances, may in fact BE evidence to help confirm a hypothesis.
I agree.

To be fair, it is possible to come to conclusions through processes other then applying the scientific method.

.>Best day on Veeky Forums ever!

>To be fair, it is possible to come to conclusions through processes other then applying the scientific method.
Sure, but which of these processes are relevant to aliens?

Yes but neither is absence of evidence indicative or evidence of something. I could claim some wild shit and just state this, it doesn't make it valid or worth discussion.