Daily reminder

So what do ~E and ~X mean that is distinct from absence?

>So what do ~E and ~X mean that is distinct from absence?
If ~E is evidence, then your "proof" doesn't have anything to do with a claim regarding an absence of evidence.

That doesn't answer the question. What does ~E mean?

>What does ~E mean?
According to , ~E means evidence for ~X, assuming that "If P(X|E) > P(X) then E is evidence for X" is meant to be a definition of evidence.

Can you give a real world example of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?

>~E means evidence for ~X
No that is an implication from the premise, not what ~X means. Answer the question.

>Can you give a real world example of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?
There's an absence of evidence regarding extraterrestrial life outside the 28 light year range (or whatever the longest detection range currently is). This is not evidence of absence of extraterrestrial life outside the 28 light year range.

>No that is an implication from the premise, not what ~X means. Answer the question.
You asked what ~E means, not ~X, make up your mind. ~X presumably means 'complement of X'. If it doesn't, you can explain what you meaning you intended.

It is, actually.

>It is, actually.
Not an argument.

So, Planet X is still real. Thanks user and thanks Carl.

Correct. To be fair, there weren't any arguments in the OP either.

>Correct. To be fair, there weren't any arguments in the OP either.
The claim is self-evident.

The absence of evidence of the intelligence in the OP is evidence of the absence of intelligence in the OP

>You asked what ~E means, not ~X, make up your mind.
I asked what both mean, retard.

>~X presumably means 'complement of X'.
The compliment of an event is the negation of that event, the absence of X.

youtu.be/_w5JqQLqqTc

"known knowns = earth is round, known unknowns = exactly how large is the universe, unknown unknowns = can't say becaise if i did know, it wouldn't be an unknown unknown, but a known unknown"

>just because i have no evidence doesn't mean I'm wrong
Perhaps not, but it still means you have no evidence to sustain your claim or argument

>There's an absence of evidence regarding extraterrestrial life outside the 28 light year range (or whatever the longest detection range currently is). This is not evidence of absence of extraterrestrial life outside the 28 light year range.

Let E = evidence regarding extraterrestrial life outside the 28 light year range
Let X = extraterrestrial life outside the 28 light year range

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

Thus the absence of evidence regarding extraterrestrial life outside the 28 light year range is evidence of the absence of extraterrestrial life outside the 28 light year range

Nor is it evidence of the absence of extraterrestrial life inside the 28 light year range.

>I asked what both mean, retard.
see >The compliment of an event is the negation of that event, the absence of X.
By your own definition, if E is evidence for X, then ~E is evidence for ~X. Hence your your "proof" doesn't have anything to do with a claim regarding an absence of evidence.

Next?

>Perhaps not, but it still means you have no evidence to sustain your claim or argument
What argument?

>Nor is it evidence of the absence of extraterrestrial life inside the 28 light year range.
Correct, but what's your point?

>Thus the absence of evidence regarding extraterrestrial life outside the 28 light year range is evidence of the absence of extraterrestrial life outside the 28 light year range
Does not follow.

See You haven't given the meaning of either. Why are you avoiding the question?

>Hence your your "proof" doesn't have anything to do with a claim regarding an absence of evidence.
An absence of evidence of X is an absence of evidence. By this logic there is no such thing as an absence of evidence at all since evidence of *something* exists.

you're a bad troll

Does follow.

Projection.

>You haven't given the meaning of either. Why are you avoiding the question?
I've given meanings of both. ~E is evidence for ~X (by your definition).

>An absence of evidence of X is an absence of evidence.
Trivially yes, but what's your point?

>By this logic there is no such thing as an absence of evidence at all since evidence of *something* exists.
How can there be no such thing as an absence of evidence? If there was no such thing then there would be no need to ever perform any experiments since all the evidence would already be present.

>Does follow.
Prove it.

it's obvious you're trolling

Just reaffirming.

>I've given meanings of both. ~E is evidence for ~X (by your definition).
See >Trivially yes, but what's your point?
This directly contradicts your claim here , which is that ~X cannot be evidence since it is an absence of evidence. Of course absence of evidence of something can be evidence of something else. You're just ignoring context in order to make a semantic fallacy.

~E is the absence of E and ~X is the absence of X. By direct substitution, it's proven.

It's obvious you're trolling.

>ITT: brainlet freshmen who think they're smarter than Carl motherfucking Sagan
lmfao Veeky Forums is too much sometimes

>ow can there be no such thing as an absence of evidence?
There can't, that's what you're argument implies though. Since you claim ~X cannot be an absence of evidence of something because it is evidence of something else.

you're the troll. give it up troll

Here's what Sagan actually said:

"appeal to ignorance -- the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g. There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist -- and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
-Carl Sagan

Clearly here he is talking about proof, not evidence.

>See
Your post says "If P(X|E) > P(X) then E is evidence for X" and "P(~X|~E) > P(~X)". Therefore ~E is evidence for ~X (by your definition). If you're saying that it is not the case that ~E is evidence for ~X, then you are contradicting your own definition.

>This directly contradicts your claim here (You), which is that ~X cannot be evidence since it is an absence of evidence.
Nothing in says anything about ~X being able to be evidence or not. Please reread the post and try again.

>Of course absence of evidence of something can be evidence of something else.
What can the absence of evidence of extraterrestrial life outside the detectable range be evidence of?

>~E is the absence of E and ~X is the absence of X. By direct substitution, it's proven.
~E is by your own definition evidence, hence your "proof" doesn't have anything to do with a claim regarding an absence of evidence.

Next?

proof is literally a synonym of evidence. There is no difference between the two

>There can't, that's what you're argument implies though. Since you claim ~X cannot be an absence of evidence of something because it is evidence of something else.
When did I ever imply such a thing? I made no claim about ~X being evidence or not.

Next?

>Your post says "If P(X|E) > P(X) then E is evidence for X" and "P(~X|~E) > P(~X)". Therefore ~E is evidence for ~X (by your definition). If you're saying that it is not the case that ~E is evidence for ~X, then you are contradicting your own definition.
You are confusing my pointing out the lack of relevance of your response for disagreement with your response. Again, what does ~E mean? The reason you can't answer is because you know it's the absence of E, which destroys your argument.

>Nothing in says anything about ~X being able to be evidence or not.
It claims that the proof has nothing to do with an absence of evidence. This is fallacious since evidence of something can be an absence of evidence of something else.

>What can the absence of evidence of extraterrestrial life outside the detectable range be evidence of?
The absence of extraterrestrial life outside the detectable range.

>~E is by your own definition evidence, hence your "proof" doesn't have anything to do with a claim regarding an absence of evidence.
E is evidence therefore ~E is an absence of evidence. Your puerile attempts to hide this don't work.

Neither is it evidence of possible evidence, though. It's a meaningless/useless statement, without context. See:

Two words being a synonym does not mean there cannot be a difference between the two, since words can have multiple meanings. Just because one of those meanings is the same as another doesn't mean all meanings are the same as another. Saying that something is "proved false" is different from something which has evidence of being false. And something which "must be true" is different from something which has evidence of being true.

>When did I ever imply such a thing?
You argued that if X is evidence of something then ~X cannot be simultaneously an absence of evidence and evidence of absence. But this is directly proven from the premise that X is evidence of something. You're just claiming over and over again that the conclusion is wrong when the conclusion directly follows from the premise, which you agree with. This is because you are confused over the semantics of evidence.

>Again, what does ~E mean?
By your own "proof" (see ), ~E means evidence for ~X.

>It claims that the proof has nothing to do with an absence of evidence.
That is the case, since your "proof" only deals with evidence E for X and evidence ~E for ~X. Hence your "proof" doesn't have anything to do with a claim regarding an absence of evidence.

>The absence of extraterrestrial life outside the detectable range.
By this logic no experiments would ever have to be run, since we already have evidence of absence.

>E is evidence therefore ~E is an absence of evidence.
By your own "proof" (see ), ~E means evidence for ~X, hence is not an absence of evidence.

the statement has meaning. You can't say something doesn't exist just because there is no evidence that it does

>You argued that if X is evidence of something then ~X cannot be simultaneously an absence of evidence and evidence of absence.
That's correct.

If something has been proved false then there must be evidence proving so. You big dummy

>By your own "proof" (see ), ~E means evidence for ~X
Again you avoid the question. Does ~E mean an absence of E?

>That is the case, since your "proof" only deals with evidence E for X and evidence ~E for ~X. Hence your "proof" doesn't have anything to do with a claim regarding an absence of evidence.
~E is absence of E, therefore it deals with an absence of evidence. You lose.

>By this logic no experiments would ever have to be run, since we already have evidence of absence.
No experiments have to be run when the proposition is proven or disproven to a satisfactory level, not when you have some evidence one way or the other. What a retarded argument.

>By your own "proof" (see ), ~E means evidence for ~X, hence is not an absence of evidence.
Non-responsive to what you're quoting. ~E is absence of evidence of X. How it's related to ~X doesn't change that.

Then your argument fails since the fact that X is evidence of something directly implies that its absence is evidence of something else.

>If something has been proved false then there must be evidence proving so.
Non-responsive. All cats are animals, doesn't mean animals are the same as cats.

Lol so what you're saying is you can prove something without evidence.

jesus fucking christ, this thread again?
there was an absolute autism-fest thread about the fermi """""paradox""""" that went exactly this way about 3 weeks ago

So what you're saying is that you can't read?

Yes, but now that we've pinpointed the exact fallacy OP is making and he can't be vague anymore, this will end quickly. Watch, he will probably not respond to and

Nope that's what your saying. Proof and evidence isn't the same thing right?

They can be the same thing, they are not the same thing in the context used here, which would be clear if you could actually read. Sagan is saying that the absence of absolute proof is not an absolute proof of absence, or vice versa.

Context. Sagan was a double agent. He knew about the alien presence but pushed the official narrative. He deserves a posthumous unaward.

If you replaced the word proof with evidence that statements meaning wouldn't change. He literally used the word evidence in the original quote.
YA BIG DUMMY

~E is not absence of E. Your treating E as a binary random variable which means that ~E exists within the domain of E. If your notation wasn't retarded and you used E = +e and E = -e like every other person on the planet this would be obvious

>If you replaced the word proof with evidence that statements meaning wouldn't change.
Of course it would, since the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Notice that nowhere does Sagan talk about simple evidence vis a vis simple evidence:

>the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa
>PROVED false
>MUST be true

>There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist-- and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe
>there IS intelligent life

>There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.
>we ARE still central to the universe

>~E is not absence of E.
Then what is it?

>Your treating E as a binary random variable which means that ~E exists within the domain of E.
E is not a random variable at all, you moron, it's an event. Either you have evidence of something or you don't. It's binary.

> If your notation wasn't retarded and you used E = +e and E = -e like every other person on the planet this would be obvious
It's standard notation, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about since you don't know the difference between an event and a variable.

No you mean the abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.
Otherwise you're saying there needs to be evidence in order for something to exist.

>implying republicans are better than third-world immigrants

>No you mean the abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.
No I mean the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. See >Otherwise you're saying there needs to be evidence in order for something to exist.
No, there needs to be evidence to increase our belief that something exists. If E is evidence of X then it must be true that the absence of E is evidence of the absence of X.

You don't even know what the fuck a random variable is very obviously. A random variable, despite the name, is a FUNCTION that models an EVENT. All the properties you used to demonstrate your "proof" are properties of random variables. Do you understand? This is undergrad probability. Actually no, this is fucking high school probability.

I don't see a million dollars in my room
doesn't mean it isn't there

You don't have any evidence that my sister exists. Yet that doesn't necessarily mean that she doesn't.
abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence

>You don't even know what the fuck a random variable is very obviously. A random variable, despite the name, is a FUNCTION that models an EVENT.
Exactly, and E is an event, not a function that models an event. I don't see how you could conclude that I don't know what a random variable is when all I did was point this out.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how ~E is not the absence of E.

>You don't have any evidence that my sister exists. Yet that doesn't necessarily mean that she doesn't.
It is evidence that she doesn't, not absolute proof that she doesn't. This is what I just explained to you, yet you made the exact same fallacy.

You don't understand still. I understand what your trying to say now, but random variables are typically denoted with uppercase and events with lower case. In this sense however, both E and ~E would exist within the domain space of a binary random variable if these events exibhited the properties you used for your proof

> I understand what your trying to say now, but random variables are typically denoted with uppercase and events with lower case.
Yes, when random variables are used. But no random variables are being used here, and when that is the case, events are typically uppercase letters. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notation_in_probability_and_statistics where it is stated that random variables are typically written in uppercase letters and then two lines down it refers to events A and B

You forgot to read the line right above it where it stated P(A) is shorthand for P(w: X(w) in A), where A and w are events and X os a random varaible. There is always a random variable involved

There is a random variable involved, doesn't mean anything I wrote refers to it. E is an event, not a random variable. ~E is the absence of E.

So you believe you can prove something without evidence. Lol okay
They're two different things after all
You've got evidence but no proof or "absolute proof"

>So you believe you can prove something without evidence.
Where did I say that?

I don't need evidence I've got proof.

Where did I say that?

I don't need proof I've got evidence

Where did I say that?

Don't repeat yourself cause that's not what I'm doing

Then answer the question.

>words do not commute under the OF operator
Who the fuck designed this shit language? I want a commutative language ASAP. Come on, linguist fags. Is this the best you can do?

You know what, you're right to a degree. In some circumstances absence of evidence can be evidence of absence, but not always. Given:
X 0.6
~X 0.4
I could say:
X| E 0.9
~X| E 0.1
X|~E 0.6
~X|~E 0.4
Which is a valid CPT where P(X|E) > P(X), but P(~X|~E) = P(~X)

That is if P(~E) is 1*

topkek

If P(~E) = 1 then P(E) = 0 and P(X|E) cannot be computed. Edge cases don't work in conditional probability.

P(X| E) can be computed regardless of P(E). But E would be useless

>P(X| E) can be computed regardless of P(E)
>what is bayes' theorem

If we are given X|E then qe don't need to use bayes theorem to compute X|E

you're missing the point.

to quote kolmogorov:
>The concept of a conditional probability with regard to an isolated hypothesis whose probability equals 0 is inadmissible.

That's like saying if you're given a/0 you don't need to compute it.

You don't