Just a friendly reminder that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

When do doctors have an absence of evidence?

*Shorts Treasuries*
*Loses Money*

newsmax.com/finance/StreetTalk/Nassim-Taleb-Shorting-Treasuries/2010/02/04/id/348993/

>abense

evidence of presence is what it is
sometimes evidence is conclusive

t. God

>professional pseudoscience debunker
>anti-GMO advocate

NN Taleb is seriously one of the top ten most intelligent people alive today, and I say that even knowing I have no idea how brilliant the best in China and India are because I don't speak the language.

If you haven't read Antifragile by now, you're a fool.

He has made tens of millions trading. Pulling out a missed call (doesn't make it the wrong call btw) is pathetic.

when will this meme die. absence of evidence is evidence of absence, not proof of it.

I know man. You should also check out Bill Nye, he's in the top 5.

>absence of evidence is evidence of absence
Wrong.

>When do doctors have an absence of evidence?
Before that have evidence.

t. ISIS

Wrong, they all went against the petrodollar.
He who goes against America will truly face the Lord's wrath, for we are the chosen people.

Do you seriously believe this? Why? Examples?

well they did [math] something [/math] wrong
just maybe not wmds

Bayes' theorem, brainlet

>Bayes' theorem, brainlet
You'll have to elaborate.

Technically he is right in the most meaningless way. If there isn't evidence for something after you tested/looked for, statistically the chance that something exists is smaller than when you started looking. Practically speaking, Taleb is right in most circumstances.

>If there isn't evidence for something after you tested/looked for
What sort of test doesn't provide evidence?

Get off sci

lul3d pissing off the entire arab world and further cementing the idea that israel is americas imperialist butt buddy is "optimal"

Get off life so you cant vote or procreate

This only works if you have a model when you start looking. Obviously, you must adjust your model. The existence of something isn't affected by this, only your model is.

>Get off sci
What evidence does that test provide?

> that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
isn't that about as trivial as it gets? How could that be controversial?

>Absence of smoke is not evidence of the absence of fire.

proof only exists in math and alcohol

This. All he does is complain about the scientific limits of statistics, something even a high schooler can do.

He is to economics and statistics what Neil DeGrasse Tyson is to physics.

There is not any evidence that invisible fairies don't live behind every atom and push things around to make the universe work, so how can you say they don't exist?

Clearly it’s an option

Is there any evidence that there aren't invisible fairies who live behind every atom and push things around to make the universe work?

If I ring my neighbor’s doorbell and he doesn’t open, that’s evidence he is absent.

Yeah, they had oil instead of wmds!

lmfao at actually thinking this.

>If I ring my neighbor’s doorbell and he doesn’t open, that’s evidence he is absent.
What does that have to do with an absence of evidence?

Its more of an obvious fact than an idea. They have us by the balls.

lmfao holy shit, the absolute state of frequentists

Dude if my neighbor rings my doorbell there’s a zero percent chance I’m opening the door.

>Saddam did N O T H I N G wrong. Neither did Gaddafi or Assad.

>keeping Israel safe

The fact that my neighbor does not open the door means that there is an absence of evidence that he is at home. And that is evidence of his absence. In this case, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

>The fact that my neighbor does not open the door means that there is an absence of evidence that he is at home. And that is evidence of his absence. In this case, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
But you found evidence by performing such an experiment.

Indeed. “My neighbor is not at home” is a reasonable statement only if you bothered to check.

>Indeed. “My neighbor is not at home” is a reasonable statement only if you bothered to check.
So then what does it have to do with an absence of evidence?

There is an absence of evidence that your neighbor is at home.

but you have evidence they're not at home

i don't understand the point of this thread
this is a common platitude in science
it's like saying 1+1=2 to a mathematician or something

The state of Veeky Forums

but I thought he had skin in the game?

youtube.com/watch?v=H11t5zBd3fU

I get what you’re saying. You’re interpreting “absence of evidence” as an absence of evidence toward either conclusion, which is valid, and in that case it is true that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But it can also be interpreted as “absence of evidence [towards the absence of X]”, where X may be your neighbor or WMDs in Iraq or whatever, in which case it can be true that absence of evidence is evidence of absence; you looked to see whether your neighbor was at home and you did not encounter evidence that he was at home, which is valid grounds to assume he was absent at the time.

If you tell people that it is true that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence you may be misinforming them if they do not have the same interpretation as you do.

Excuse me, it should have been [towards the presence of X].

Autism.
You're doing nothing but defining away the problem

>You're doing nothing but defining away the problem
What part of 'absence of evidence' made you think evidence should be present?

>abense

At least he has a reasonable foundation for believing so, even though I disagree with him on it.

We'll by Dr.dre's theorem "where there is smoke there is fire there is flames."

So smoke does mean fire.

>What part of 'absence of evidence' made you think evidence should be present?
>muh absence of evidence means there is no evidence to support any claim whatsoever, and the moment there is, it's no longer absence of evidence. checkmate!
Kek
You're literally assuming what you're trying to prove, though. You're arbitrarily redefining "absence of evidence" specifically so that your conclusion is true.
Most of us understand "absence of evidence" to mean "we have failed to find a specific piece of evidence predicted by a theory we are (implicitly or explicitly) testing," rather than "we have no basis whatsoever for making predictions or models." Just use your brain - "absence of evidence" doesn't even exist in the real world as you have defined it. And ergo nobody has ever used it to conclude evidence of absence, rendering the entire point moot.
Your formulation is technically correct, if you jump through the hoops of sophistry, but it's banal and totally useless. The one everyone else is using is pragmatic.

>my fiance is never late for a date, because the moment she is, she is no longer my fiance

>You're literally assuming what you're trying to prove, though.
How can you prove absence of evidence IS evidence of absence without assuming what you're trying to prove?

>Most of us understand "absence of evidence" to mean "we have failed to find a specific piece of evidence predicted by a theory we are (implicitly or explicitly) testing,"
But if you didn't find that specific piece then you must have found a different one, so you do have evidence.

>Just use your brain - "absence of evidence" doesn't even exist in the real world as you have defined it.
Where is string theory evidence?

>I am not an arab
NASSIM nicholas TALEB

Hold up buckaroo, the negation of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is not "absence of evidence is *necessarily* evidence of absence"

>you must have found a different ***specific piece of evidence predicted by the theory we are testing***
Nope

>Where is string theory evidence?
"We don't have it, so we actually have evidence, and not an absence of evidence after all hurr durr"

>"We don't have it, so we actually have evidence, and not an absence of evidence after all hurr durr"
Who are you quoting?

>Hold up buckaroo, the negation of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is not "absence of evidence is *necessarily* evidence of absence"
How can you prove absence of evidence can possibly be evidence of absence without assuming what you're trying to prove?

>Nope
Actually yes.