Is absence of evidence, evidence of absence?
No.
>>814830
Then how do you disprove something like fairies? Wouldn't the whole argument be "theres no evidence"?
>>814839
That's not entirely relevant to your earlier statement
Ir's evidence of absence of evidence
>>814819
No. Something simply remains unproven.
Something that is unproven can be ignored. When theorizing or proofing other concepts.
The existence of god is one of these types of things. When mapping the human genome god went completely unutilized as an idea because the existence of god is unproven.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_w5JqQLqqTc
>>814819
Depends on the issue and context.
>>814839
>Then how do you disprove something like fairies?
You don't. You ignore them until proven.
>>814839
>>814964
basically, layman wise, faires CAN BE, god CAN BE, we have no proof against it, obviously BUT, we do have broad adjacents and specific adjacents.
Example: faires: First you must figure out what is a fairy, lets assume small humanoid with wings. For a fairy to be that size, it is most likely its body would have to evolved differently to handle literally a scaled down size of a human and as such would most likely not even look human. (broad adjacent, with some evidence for this theory)
Now let's get a little more specific. Wing size, still assuming a full on human body (even given the last adjacent), the wings themselves would have to be either massive or their body would have to be fairly lightweight in order to actually grant flight.
We have stuff like this, however, god is a special little exception because he has no form at all, nothing physical and can magically do whatever he fucking please's. So, their is LITERALLY only Faith and belief.
>>815027
No. You're using improper language. This is going to devolve into an argument of semantics but we should proceed.
The word "can" implies ability; the evidence of this ability is non-existent. So saying fairies "can" exist is optimistic but irrelevant.
At the same time you are also unable to say with 100% definity fairies/god "can not" exist.
So intuitively you would place fairies/god in a neutral position but that would be wrong as well. We have a hard time conceptualizing "nothing" but that's where fairies/god would be on an existential metric.
God isn't a "special little example" it's just a widely accepted concept people have faith in.
>>815140
i see what you're saying, while I'm trying to argue probability of something being, that still will never disprove them because you can not disprove nothing.
>>815193
Yeah we can argue probability all day long. Facts by nature are binary and anything between "true" and "false", anything else is up for debate.
I'm cynical when it comes to science and you seem optimistic (judging strictly by your language). We need both kinds to make advances.
This whole thread was a bait thread i'm sure. And the statement in question was quoted from a politician, saying something literally synonymous with "nothing" to defend his current political regimes actions. Silly stuff.
>>814819
Depends on the sample size.
If you expect evidence everywhere yet find none with a large sample size then yeah it's probably evidence of absence.
Of course this requires some form of falsifiable hypothesis first otherwise even the largest sample size is meaningless.
Without a hypothesis you have nothing to test your samples with and if it isn't falsifiable then it gives equal results for positive and negative tests.
Without a hypothesis it is meaningless to even consider absence of evidence.
There is no evidence of absence to consider because it is functionally indistinguishable from the evidence of presence.
The thing can simply be dismissed out of hand if one wishes to do so.
>>814819
just because there was no experimental evidence for the equivalence of mass and energy in the medieval era does not mean it did not apply in those times
>>815275
That's a stupid false equivalency at best.
There are extreme amounts of evidence that mass and energy existed during medieval times.
There is even evidence of experimentation although the experitors were not necessarily aware of their experiments.
>>815020
this. burden of proof lies in the person that there is sucb thing as faries. anecdotal evidence doesn't also count
>>814819
Yes, if the person relying on said absence relies on it to disprove a proposition that, if proved, tends to affirmatively negate the proposition the person relying the absence is propounding.
Otherwise no.
>>815424
Sorry I should have said a proposition not the proposition
>>815310
Medieval people didn't know that. That is why I am setting this in medieval times.
>the experitors were not necessarily aware of their experiments
If they were not aware then from their perspective there is an absence of evidence for the equivalence of mass and energy and according to OP this means that is evidence of absence.
How about another thought experiment. Imagine aliens visited you and said "herpdederp zorg blurp". Why should you believe them? They could be solving a physics problem enabling humans to develop hyperdrive, or they could be talking shit, tell me whether you believe them and I will tell you what the answer is.
K go
>>814819
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunctive_syllogism
You don't need to disprove every idea. Simply saying there is no evidence and ignoring it until evidence arrives is enough. Why is this so hard for some people to understand?
