Just a friendly reminder

Is that an argument that God exists possibly?

>When is there an absence of evidence?
I'm not sure what kind of answer you're expecting for this sort of question, there's an absence of evidence before any evidence is discovered, when else?

youtu.be/qiNiW4_6R3I
Now let kms please

>there's an absence of evidence before any evidence is discovered
When was no evidence discovered, exactly?

But the person in this video is just arguing against a strawman, he limits himself to "positive evidence", not evidence.

Is he really implying a blood test isn't evidence?

>When was no evidence discovered, exactly?
Before anyone's discovered any.

>all the commenters who BTFO the fedora tipper who made the video

>Before anyone's discovered any.
That's what I'm asking though, when was that? Because it seems that the "absence of evidence" cannot be applied to any current situation, since "evidence" of some kind currently exists. Or you could just be misinterpreting the phrase.

>But the person in this video is just arguing against a strawman, he limits himself to "positive evidence", not evidence.
That's wrong, the exact same argument applies to evidence against something.

>That's what I'm asking though, when was that?
"Before anyone's discovered any" is an interval of time, it's not an event and so asking "when was that?" does not yield any answer other than itself.

>Because it seems that the "absence of evidence" cannot be applied to any current situation, since "evidence" of some kind currently exists.
Would you consider a medical test to look for a disease to be evidence?

>Or you could just be misinterpreting the phrase.
What could be misinterpreted? There's simply no evidence.

>That's wrong, the exact same argument applies to evidence against something.
How so?

>"Before anyone's discovered any" is an interval of time
An interval has a start and an end, I'm asking where it ended.

>Would you consider a medical test to look for a disease to be evidence?
Yes.

>What could be misinterpreted? There's simply no evidence.
When was there no evidence?

The absence of evidence against something is evidence for the absence of that thing's absence. In other words, it is evidence for that thing.

>An interval has a start and an end, I'm asking where it ended.
When evidence is discovered.

>Yes.
So today there's an absence of evidence of all disease occurrences that will be tested for tomorrow.

>When was there no evidence?
Before any evidence was discovered.

>The absence of evidence against something is evidence for the absence of that thing's absence.
How so?

>In other words, it is evidence for that thing.
How do you argue something from nothing?

>When evidence is discovered.
When was that exactly?

>So today there's an absence of evidence of all disease occurrences that will be tested for tomorrow.
Excuse me but where does the phrase "absence of evidence" refer to "all disease occurrences that will be tested for tomorrow"? It just says evidence. If we can't interpret "absence of evidence" as "absence of evidence of X" then neither can you.

>Before any evidence was discovered.
When?

>How so?
>How do you argue something from nothing?
See the video you are responding to.

>When was that exactly?
If you give a specific case I can give you a specific answer, otherwise the general answer remains the same: a time of discovery is exactly at the time of discovery.

>Excuse me but where does the phrase "absence of evidence" refer to "all disease occurrences that will be tested for tomorrow"? It just says evidence.
It's a current situation where there an absence of evidence can be applied.

>When?
See above.

>See the video you are responding to.
The video has already been debunked by myself and in most of the comments underneath it, the person is arguing against a strawman. The blood test in "my cat's blood test is not positive for herpes" is most certainly "evidence" by any reasonable definition, and so there's is no absence of evidence involved.

>If you give a specific case
Why do you keep mentioning a specific case? The OP is about when there's an absence of evidence.

>It's a current situation where there an absence of evidence can be applied.
Yeah, such as?

Your only response to the video is that it only applies to positive evidence, which is false.

>The blood test in "my cat's blood test is not positive for herpes" is most certainly "evidence" by any reasonable definition, and so there's is no absence of evidence involved.
Exactly, so when was there an absence of evidence?

>Why do you keep mentioning a specific case?
Because I've already proved the general case.

>Yeah, such as?
see

>Your only response to the video is that it only applies to positive evidence, which is false.
see the image in , the person who made the video stated in him/herself

>Exactly, so when was there an absence of evidence?
Before any evidence was discovered.

>Because I've already proved the general case.
What general case? Where did you prove it?

>see
See

Actually an absence of evidence is exactly that. Do you believe that there are magic pixies moving electrons to make computers work? Of course you don't, the absence of any evidence in favour of the "pixie hypothesis" implies that we should severely doubt that hypothesis, this is exactly how science works. For more information see:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference
Godfrey-Smith, Theory and Reality.
In particular chapter 14, Bayesianism and Modern Theories of Evidence.

>What general case? Where did you prove it?
see >See
What does this have to do with the current situation?

>see the image in , the person who made the video stated in him/herself
I already explained to you, you can replace positive evidence with evidence against and the same argument works.

>Before any evidence was discovered.
When was that? Just give me the general date, within 500 years.

>buy a 3 pound cookie jar
>come home and open it
>no evidence of any cookies
>go back to the shop and ask the manager wtf
>he asks me to prove there are no cookies in the jar they sold me
>show him the empty jar
>he says that absence of evidence of cookies in the jar is not evidence of their absence

>see
I don't see any general case or proof.

>What does this have to do with the current situation?
What does the current situation have to do with an absence of evidence?

>I already explained to you, you can replace positive evidence with evidence against and the same argument works.
If you replace it with evidence against then the argument continues to fail to apply to a situation with an absence of evidence, since it still only applies to half of all evidence.

>I don't see any general case or proof.
see (You)

>What does the current situation have to do with an absence of evidence?
There's an absence of evidence in the current situation.

>When was that?
see

>If you replace it with evidence against then the argument continues to fail to apply to a situation with an absence of evidence
Yes, so when was there an absence of evidence? Because as far as I can tell, there was never an absence of evidence for as long as human intellect has existed. Therefore the phrase becomes meaningless.

So we can now move on to a real interpretation of the phrase, which is evidence for something. This could be a specific piece of evidence for something, or all the evidence for something, or evidence for the absence of something, etc.

>see (You)
See >There's an absence of evidence in the current situation.
The current situation has evidence for many things, so that's wrong.

>Yes, so when was there an absence of evidence?
Before there was any evidence.

>Because as far as I can tell, there was never an absence of evidence for as long as human intellect has existed. Therefore the phrase becomes meaningless.
How can it be meaningless if you just gave a specific point in time when there was an absence of evidence?

>So we can now move on to a real interpretation of the phrase, which is evidence for something.
Why would you interpret an absence as presence?

>see
See

>See
see >The current situation has evidence for many things, so that's wrong.
Excuse me but where does the phrase "absence of evidence" refer to "evidence for many things"? It just says evidence.

>See
see

>Before there was any evidence.
OK, so before humans existed, how is this phrase useful then?

>How can it be meaningless if you just gave a specific point in time when there was an absence of evidence?
Because saying there was no evidence for an absence of something before humans existed is redundant. Before there was evidence there was no evidence.

>OK, so before humans existed, how is this phrase useful then?
What do you mean? Back then before humans existed the phrase wouldn't be useful, since no one spoke English.

>Because saying there was no evidence for an absence of something before humans existed is redundant.
How so?

>Before there was evidence there was no evidence.
When was that exactly?

>see
See >Excuse me but where does the phrase "absence of evidence" refer to "evidence for many things"? It just says evidence.
Where did I say it refers to evidence for many things? I simply said that your claim that there is an absence of evidence in the current situation is wrong since there is evidence in the current situation. Are you denying that there is evidence at all?

>What do you mean? Back then before humans existed the phrase wouldn't be useful, since no one spoke English.
Yes, that is my point. So you admit that your interpretation has no use. Thank you.

>How so?
See the third sentence in >When was that exactly?
See the first sentence in

>See
see >Where did I say it refers to evidence for many things?
see >I simply said that your claim that there is an absence of evidence in the current situation is wrong since there is evidence in the current situation.
What evidence?

>Are you denying that there is evidence at all?
I'm a skeptic, not a denier. I refrain from taking a stance until there's evidence regarding the matter.

>Yes, that is my point. So you admit that your interpretation has no use. Thank you.
The interpretation has no use back then before humans existed, of course it has use now since people actually speak English now.

>See the third sentence in
That doesn't explain redundancy.

>See the first sentence in
That's a question, not a time.

Holy autism

>see
See >see (You)
Where did I refer to the "absence of evidence"? I didn't, I referred to the current situation which is not an "absence of evidence."

>What evidence?
Medical tests.

>I'm a skeptic, not a denier. I refrain from taking a stance until there's evidence regarding the matter.
So is there evidence that we have evidence?

>The interpretation has no use back then before humans existed, of course it has use now since people actually speak English now.
But the only time there was an absence of evidence was then, so it has no use now.

>That doesn't explain redundancy.
Yes it does. Evidence of absence is redundant when what is meant is evidence of any kind.

>That's a question, not a time.
The question refers to a time.

>See (You)
see >Where did I refer to the "absence of evidence"?
see

>Medical tests.
There is none in the current situation.

>So is there evidence that we have evidence?
Of course not, otherwise there would be no absence of evidence.

>But the only time there was an absence of evidence was then
[citation needed]

>Yes it does. Evidence of absence is redundant when what is meant is evidence of any kind.
It's not dialectically redundant, since Sagan is of course referring to the propensity to use the absence of evidence as evidence of absence (it's not often used as evidence of presence).

>The question refers to a time.
That's a question, not a time.

>see
See >see (You)
Nowhere did I write "absence of evidence" in that post. You lose.

>There is none in the current situation.
There are currently medical tests, you lose.

>Of course not, otherwise there would be no absence of evidence.
So there isn't. You lose.

Don't bother replying, you'll have to try again tomorrow.

How did this thread devolve so quickly

>See
see >Nowhere did I write "absence of evidence" in that post. You lose.
You wrote "evidence for many things" in response to me referring to an absence of evidence. If you didn't mean it in that situation then your post was simply contentless anyway.

>There are currently medical tests
Not in the current situation.

>you lose.
What do you mean?

>So there isn't.
There isn't what?

>You lose.
What do you mean?

>Don't bother replying, you'll have to try again tomorrow.
Will there be evidence tomorrow?

>[citation needed]
The burden of proof is on you, since you claim it exists. But so far you have failed to even give me an approximate time range when there was an absence of evidence. So you lost.

>It's not dialectically redundant, since Sagan is of course referring to the propensity to use the absence of evidence as evidence of absence (it's not often used as evidence of presence).
As I've already shown, this was never used according to your own interpretation, since there was never a time in human existence when there was an absence of evidence. You lose.

>That's a question, not a time.
The question refers to a time. You lose.

>implying it wasn't devolved at the exact moment OP posted it, and before then.

>The burden of proof is on you, since you claim it exists
What do you mean? I already said I'm a skeptic, what purpose would there be of me providing a proof of existence?

>But so far you have failed to even give me an approximate time range when there was an absence of evidence.
Why would an approximate time range be needed when an exact one can be given?

>You lose.
What do you mean?

>As I've already shown,
Where?

>this was never used according to your own interpretation
I'm not sure what you think is my interpretation, I'm simply making use of Sagan's.

>since there was never a time in human existence when there was an absence of evidence.
[citation needed]

> You lose.
What do you mean?

>The question refers to a time.
That's a question, not a time.

>You lose.
What do you mean?

>>implying it wasn't devolved at the exact moment OP posted it, and before then.
Who are you quoting?

You realize you are arguing with a massively blatant troll rather than an actual person, right?

How is it that on a STEM board there are (presumably university) students who read "absence" and think of the opposite?

Is critical thinking not taught anymore?

>You realize you are arguing with a massively blatant troll rather than an actual person, right?
What do you mean?

there's no "Evidence" in a simulated universe

Yes, of course.

Corrected it a bit:
Absence of evidence SO FAR is not evidence of absence.

>>The burden of proof is on you, since you claim it exists
>What do you mean? I already said I'm a skeptic, what purpose would there be of me providing a proof of existence?
>
>>But so far you have failed to even give me an approximate time range when there was an absence of evidence.
>Why would an approximate time range be needed when an exact one can be given?
>
>>You lose.
>What do you mean?
>
>>As I've already shown,
>Where?
>
>>this was never used according to your own interpretation
>I'm not sure what you think is my interpretation, I'm simply making use of Sagan's.
>
>>since there was never a time in human existence when there was an absence of evidence.
>[citation needed]
>
>> You lose.
>What do you mean?
>
>>The question refers to a time.
>That's a question, not a time.
>
>>You lose.
>What do you mean?
see

I can't speak for math or physics but in paleontology this statement is certainly true

Consider the coelacanth. 65 million years of silence in the fossil record, and BAM, one suddenly shows up in a fish market somewhere. Locals even knew of the fish, and it was still unknown to western scientists.

>Consider the coelacanth. 65 million years of silence in the fossil record, and BAM, one suddenly shows up in a fish market somewhere.
You are confusing proof with evidence. The fact that there was no fossil evidence made it extremely unlikely that the fish existed. Consider that there is essentially an infinite amount of hypothetical animals that have no evidence of existence. Only a very small amount turn out to be real.

Honestly user no offense but are you literally retarded

People knew the coelacanth existed because there WERE fossils of it but no fossils were found younger than 65 million years old, so people thought it went extinct then. Honestly do a quick google search before talking out of your ass

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth

>You are confusing proof with evidence.
No, I'm only talking about evidence

Retard, by exist I mean existing currently.

>ad ignorantiam
No shit, that's fallacies 101

>Retard
Oh, the irony...

>The fact that there was no fossil evidence made it extremely unlikely that the fish existed. Consider that there is essentially an infinite amount of hypothetical animals that have no evidence of existence.
what the fuck do you mean, you said the coelacanth was a "hypothetical animal" and there was "no fossil evidence"

>You are confusing proof with evidence. The fact that there was no fossil evidence made it extremely unlikely that the fish existed. Consider that there is essentially an infinite amount of hypothetical animals that have no evidence of existence. Only a very small amount turn out to be real.

There was no recent fossil evidence and its existence was hypothetical.

>there was no fossil evidence
>hypothetical animals that have no evidence of existence
>no evidence of existence

ITT: People who understand probability theory arguing with people who don't.

See But if you want to be obtuse, the argument applies the same to animals which never existed.

This is not an argument from ignorance, since the conclusion is not that the absence is true, but that there is merely evidence for it.

>This is not an argument from ignorance, since the conclusion is not that the absence is true, but that there is merely evidence for it
Of course it's an argument from ignorance, you should at least try to read a simple source like the Wikipedia page before spouting such nonsense.

Here, have a read:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Distinguishing_absence_of_evidence_from_evidence_of_absence

> It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.
Thank you for proving my point. Saying that there is evidence for something does not mean you asserting that thing is true. Saying that something has not yet been proven true is not the same as saying there is an absence of evidence for that thing.

>Saying that something has not yet been proven true is not the same as saying there is an absence of evidence for that thing.
Who said anything about "proven"?

>Here, have a read:
The distinction on wikipedia here isn't quite right. If a search process COULD have yielded a piece of evidence for a hypothesis H, then probability theory requires that the fact that it did not is ALWAYS evidence against H. It may be very weak evidence, but is always nonzero. The more confident you are that a search would have found what you were looking for it is was there, the stronger this evidence is; but it can never, ever be zero.

Atheist belief is as irrational as other theist beliefs. If you deny this you're either a brainlet, or ignorant towards the meaning of atheism.

Vigorously believing that something exists without any evidence (theism) is AS IRRATIONAL as vigorously believing that something /doesn't/ exist (atheism).

Not believing in any religion, but also realising that you can't deny the fact that there's a possibility that a supernatural/"godly" entity exists is the rational and scientific belief.

t. agnost

Is this correct?

B is evidence of A iff P(A | B) > P(A)
C is evidence of absence if A iff P(A | C) < P(A)
D is independent of A iff P(A | D) = P(A)

So absence of any evidence B can be either C or D, so it isn't true in general that it has to be C (evidence of absence).

>The distinction on wikipedia here isn't quite right
Where does it contradict what you wrote?

The article you just posted, dumbass!

It says "[An argument from ignorance] asserts that a proposition IS TRUE because it has not yet been PROVEN false or a proposition IS FALSE because it has not yet been PROVEN true."

For anyone arguing that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence: why can your same reasoning not be used to say that an absence of evidence is evidence of presence?

>atheism
a-theism
(the lack of) (belief in God)
>vigorously believing
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

>t. agnostic
a-gnostic
(the lack of) (having knowledge)
Yes, clearly you are agnostic, at least of what atheism is.

Because the absence of evidence for X is not evidence of presence of X. Obviously the phrase is referring to evidence of and absence of the same thing, not opposing things.

>Obviously the phrase is referring to evidence of and absence of the same thing, not opposing things.
The phrase refers to evidence of absence and absence of evidence, how are "evidence" and "absence" "the same thing"?

They aren't, what they are *of* is the same thing, you illiterate baboon.

evidence of "absence"
absence of "evidence"

>absence
>evidence
>the same thing

...