Daily reminder that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Daily reminder that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Other urls found in this thread:

lesswrong.com/lw/ih/absence_of_evidence_is_evidence_of_absence
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

- Gin Rummy

if it can't be detected then it can't effect anything and can tnerefore be ignored

What you can't see won't hurt you. But you can't hit what you don't see.

why the fuck are you posting this shit thread again you imbecile

fuck off

>fuck
Why the vulgarities?

Why the homophobia?

Why the homophobia?

Why the homophobia?

Stop triggering atheists

>Daily reminder that:
>putting on your socks and then your shoes is not the same as putting on your shoes and then your socks.
>seeing what you eat is not the same as eating what you see.
>a left eigenvector is not the same as a right eigenvector.
blablabla
Its called commutativity. you dork.

What does your post have to do with the statement?

that you're a faggot

nice try yoda. but i didn't see the top of that doorway this morning and i hit the shit out of that.

see

see bofa

>see bofa
When?

Yes, yes, even the existence of God is logically valid. Just the same, I'd prefer not to become a fucking christian, or a particle physicist chasing the universe's tiniest unicorn. Ultimately, the burden of proof lies on the believer, and until he has made measurable what cannot be measured (to butcher Galileo) he should shut up and fuck off.

rudolph you red nosed piece of shit

>Daily reminder that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Daily reminder that this is false. Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence if evidence is possible.

Um, actually OP,

lesswrong.com/lw/ih/absence_of_evidence_is_evidence_of_absence

>Daily reminder that this is false. Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.
Not an argument.

Indeed. It's a reminder, not an argument, just like OP.

>lesswrong.com/lw/ih/absence_of_evidence_is_evidence_of_absence
Nothing on that page refutes the OP

>But in probability theory, absence of evidence is always evidence of absence. If E is a binary event and P(H|E) > P(H), "seeing E increases the probability of H"; then P(H|~E) < P(H), "failure to observe E decreases the probability of H". P(H) is a weighted mix of P(H|E) and P(H|~E), and necessarily lies between the two.