Daily Reminder

>Daily reminder that OP is a giant faggot
Why the homophobia?

>Daily reminder that the absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.
but that's wrong

How is it wrong?

Boys, boys, boys stop arguing. I just ate an apple. So not only am I fairly sure apples exist, but I am also somehow more certain that polar bears eat meat.

>How is it wrong?
Because it's not right

How is it not right?

>How is it not right?
Because it lacks validity. Try to prove it's true and you'll see the issues you run into

If P(X|E) > P(X) then E is evidence for X

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

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

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

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

Therefore ~E is evidence for ~X

QED

The claim in the OP was about the absence of evidence

If E is evidence of X then ~E is the absence of that evidence.

...

Prove it.

>If E is evidence of X then ~E is the absence of that evidence.
But ~E is evidence for ~X (see ), so your argument doesn't hold given an absence of evidence.

Then you are interpreting "absence of evidence" as "absence of evidence for and against X," which is an impossibility, as the absence of any specific evidence for X is evidence against X, via the proof above. So your interpretation renders the phrase pointless. Clearly absence of evidence refers only to absence of evidence for something.

is this supposed to say something meaningful? obviously evidence supporting something is evidence against the opposite of that something

Yes, which is why the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Glad you agree.

>Yes, which is why the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Glad you agree.
why are you interpreting "absence of evidence" as "absence of specific evidence"?

>Then you are interpreting "absence of evidence" as "absence of evidence for and against X," which is an impossibility, as the absence of any specific evidence for X is evidence against X, via the proof above
This is circular, i.e. your "proof" relies on treating a lack of evidence as evidence (which is what you're attempting to prove).

Are you claiming that an absence of evidence is evidence for X or against X?

>Then you are interpreting "absence of evidence" as "absence of evidence for and against X," which is an impossibility
But if you don't interpret it that way then you're not talking about the claim in the OP

I'm not. I'm interpreting it as an absence of evidence for whatever would be absent in the second half of the phrase. That could be specific evidence for it or all the evidence. Because the alternative is impossible.

No, no, no. You criticized my proof for not being about absence of evidence for and against X. But what it does show is that the absence of evidence for X is evidence against X. Thus we cannot have an absence of both. If there is an absence of one there cannot be an absence of the other. My proof does not have to refer to an absence of both.

What do you mean by "absence of evidence?"

>But what it does show is that the absence of evidence for X is evidence against X.
>Thus we cannot have an absence of both.
Does not follow.

>What do you mean by "absence of evidence?"
No evidence being present.

>My proof does not have to refer to an absence of both.
Then it's irrelevant to the claim in the OP.

>Because the alternative is impossible.
Why?

I already explained how the claim in OP can be interpreted and why you Cabot interpret it your way. Don't be obtuse.

>I already explained how the claim in OP can be interpreted and why you Cabot interpret it your way.
What's ambiguous about "absence of evidence"?

See

see

If evidence for X is absent then ~E is true
But ~E is evidence for ~X
Thus there cannot be an absence of evidence for X and an absence of evidence for ~X simultaneously. It clearly follows, stop being obtuse.

Evidence for what? If you mean all evidence then surely you must know evidence for something exists and there is no such thing.

>Thus there cannot be an absence of evidence for X and an absence of evidence for ~X simultaneously.
There is an absence of evidence when E and ~E are absent.

No it would be irrelevant to your interpretation, except it proves your interpretation pointless. You might as well argue that "absence of evidence" means "a married bachelor."

It's not ambiguous, it can only be interpreted as an absence of evidence for X, otherwise it's meaningless.

>this fucking troll again
The worst thing is you retards can't even see this basic flaw ~E is not the absence of evidence it's the event of everything ocurring except E. Let see it woth fucking coins. You have two coins and define an event being that you get a tails and a heads, then the negetion of that is simply the set of all possible throws except thag one. The absence of evidence would mean not that you have measured everything else but that particular thing, it's just that you have no information that is relevant for your particular proposition. Let's look at a simplified case. Suppose you want to prove that the world is round. To simplify it, let's just say you want to empirically show the earth has a positive gaussian curvature. You have a device that measures curvature. If you measure that localy it has positive curvature, you gave evidence that it's a geometric entity with positive curvature (or at least in aproximation) so measurin2 positive curvature is E. Then ~E doesn't mean you don't have measured values, but that you have either measured negative, 0 or a mixture of them. That would be actually evidence for either being a geometric shape with negative curvature (hiperboloid) something lole a flat surface 0 or a picewise smooth surface (half a sphere with a lid or something idk). Or, ~E is not the absence of evidence, is any form of information that is contained in you set that isn't E. .

>Evidence for what?
Evidence for or against some claim

>If you mean all evidence then surely you must know evidence for something exists and there is no such thing.
What do you mean by "you must know evidence for something exists"? If this evidence is present then there's no absence of evidence.

>It's not ambiguous
Then why are you introducing evidence in a situation with an absence of evidence?

>it can only be interpreted as an absence of evidence for X, otherwise it's meaningless.
Why?

That response is false. See my reply which has no relevant counterargument against it.

>You might as well argue that "absence of evidence" means "a married bachelor."
But you're the one arguing that not having any evidence means you have evidence (an absurdity).

That is an impossibility as I've already shown. Stop being obtuse.

>See my reply which has no relevant counterargument against it.
I already read your reply with no relevant counterargument, since there is no counterargument to my valid point.

>That is an impossibility as I've already shown.
Why?

You're misinterpreting my argument on purpose.

>You're misinterpreting my argument on purpose.
Either your argument begins with an absence of evidence, and ends with evidence (an absurdity), or begins with evidence and doesn't have to do with the claim in the OP.

math.stackexchange.com/a/71823/273960

Logical negation is not a good representation of what "absence" means.

>The worst thing is you retards can't even see this basic flaw ~E is not the absence of evidence it's the event of everything ocurring except E.
That is the absence of E.

>The absence of evidence would mean not that you have measured everything else but that particular thing, it's just that you have no information that is relevant for your particular proposition.
You are confused, the absence of evidence could be that you have measured everything else, or it could be only the absence of a specific piece of evidence. Either way, this is evidence against the event. Having no information relevant to the event is an impossibility, since the absence of evidence for the event is evidence against the event.

>Then ~E doesn't mean you don't have measured values, but that you have either measured negative, 0 or a mixture of them.
No, it could mean you don't have measured values too.

I suggest you represent your argument symbolically, since it seems very muddled.

>the absence of evidence could be that you have measured everything else
But a measurement is evidence

>Evidence for or against some claim
That's impossible.

>What do you mean by "you must know evidence for something exists"?
Is the world devoid of evidence? No. So you must clarify what you mean by "absence of evidence."

>since the absence of evidence for the event is evidence against the event.
That's what you're trying to prove.

>That's impossible.
How come?

>Then why are you introducing evidence in a situation with an absence of evidence?
Because the absence of evidence does not mean "absence of evidence for and against X."

>Why?
Because the "absence of evidence for and against X" is impossible.

Stop being obtuse.

>Is the world devoid of evidence?
Given any new, untested theory, yes.

You have not shown that the "absence of evidence for and against X" is possible, so you have no counterargument. Stop lying.

>Because the absence of evidence does not mean "absence of evidence for and against X."
What else would it mean?

>Because the "absence of evidence for and against X" is impossible.
How come?

I know this is a troll, but okey, let's say just for the sake of it we defined our collections of events such that it's a possibility thay the scientists got lazy and went to jerk off to anime porn so we got no data. The thing here, is that you still have in ~E every other possibility except E. That means that if you are SURE that E can't happen then that's evidence for not E happening and that means you incremented the probability of both that the eart is no a surface of positive curvature, or that the lazy fuck didn't show up to work, but it would be pretty dumb to say you either measure positive curvature or the fucking lazy bitch didn't show up for work. That's actually tampering with the data.

>You have not shown that the "absence of evidence for and against X" is possible, so you have no counterargument.
Why would it not be possible? Consider any new, untested theory. What evidence is there for or against it?

Re-phrase it as "Ignorance is not data."

If I have looked in the bathtub and found no evidence indicating a giant squid is in there, that is not the same thing as having no evidence regarding whether there is a squid in the bathtub.

>Stop lying.
Lying about what?

HOW DOES POLAR BEAR KNOW WHAT IS APPLES? IT MAKES NO SENSE!

>You have not shown that the "absence of evidence for and against X" is possible, so you have no counterargument.
I just picked out a random card out of a standard deck of cards.

What evidence do you have for or against that card being the 6 of hearts?

Stop being obtuse.

So?

I already proved it.

No, I proved it isn't.

>That means that if you are SURE that E can't happen
Obviously we're only talking about evidence that could exist, otherwise it's trivial.

Any possible prior information for or against the theory. Theories don't just pop up out of thin air.

About there being no counterargument.

>What evidence do you have for or against that card being the 6 of hearts?
If I have no evidence that the card is a 6 of hearts then this is evidence against it. If I have no evidence that the card is not a 6 of hearts then this is evidence it is. Thus it's impossible to have both no evidence for or against.

>Stop being obtuse.
Obtuse about what?

>If I have no evidence that the card is a 6 of hearts
>If I have no evidence that the card is not a 6 of hearts
So you don't have evidence for or against it. What part of this confuses you?

About what was already stated clearly in the thread. You're so immature.

Do you actually believe he's really thinks the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence? It's a troll and not even a good one, why the fuck do you keep responding. Sage

>I already proved it.
Where?

>So?
If a measurement is evidence then it can not be that a measurement is also not evidence.

>If I'm a unmarried male
>If I'm a married male
So you are a married bachelor, which part of this confuses you?

>>If I'm a unmarried male
>>If I'm a married male
>So you are an unmarried bachelor, which part of this confuses you?
If you know you're unmarried and married then you have evidence. The part of this that confuses me is what this has to do with an absence of evidence.

>No, I proved it isn't.
Where? I see no proof of such a claim

Stop being obtuse.

Of course it can, a measurement that something is red is evidence that something is red but not evidence that it is blue.

>If you know you're unmarried and married then you have evidence.
You can't know a logical impossibility, try again.

The analogous statement would be "I don't know if I'm married or not, therefore I'm a married bachelor", which is of course an absurdity

>Stop being obtuse.
Obtuse about what?

>a measurement that something is red is evidence
Exactly, hence the measurement has no place in a scenario with an absence of evidence.

Stop being obtuse.

>The analogous statement would be "I don't know if I'm married or not, therefore I'm a married bachelor"
That can't be analogous since knowing is not analogous to having evidence.

>You can't know a logical impossibility, try again.
That's why your post is nonsensical.

>That can't be analogous since knowing is not analogous to having evidence.
Consider "I'm either married or unmarried, therefore I'm a married bachelor" (an absurdity)

>Exactly, hence the measurement has no place in a scenario with an absence of evidence.
A measurement of red is an absence of a measurement of blue, so you fail yet again.

>A measurement of red
Which is evidence, hence has no place in a scenario with an absence of evidence.

>Stop being obtuse.
Obtuse how?

Then prove it.

I don't see the connection. Try again.

Your interpretation of the scenario is impossible. When are you going to respond?

Stop being obtuse.

>Then prove it.
Do you really need a proof that knowing a logical impossibility is nonsensical?

>I don't see the connection. Try again.
Consider "I'm either married or unmarried, therefore I'm a married bachelor" (an absurdity)

If you could prove my post is a logical impossiblity, you would have by now, instead of resorting to pathetic obtuse "trolling."

>Your interpretation of the scenario is impossible.
How so?

>If you could prove my post is a logical impossiblity
You called it a logical impossibility yourself, see