RE: Mathematical Proof that Absence of Evidence *IS* Evidence of Absence
May 13, 2013 at 11:44 am
(This post was last modified: May 13, 2013 at 12:55 pm by Anomalocaris.)
It depends on whether any presence would be strongly expected, reasonably and a priori, to be accompanied by detectable evidence.
For example, if we think, reasonably and a priori, any fart must produce a lingering and detectable stink, then absence of smellable stink is evidence for the absence of recent fart.
On the other hand, if we think, reasonably and a priori, some fart may be oderless, then absence of smellable stink is not evidence for the absence of recent fart.
However, attempt to relax expectation ad hoc and a posteriori so as to accommodate absence of evidence, as practiced by christians and required to sustain belief in any unique tenants, is evidence they never knew what the fuck they were talking about and continue to make it up as they go.
For example, if we think, reasonably and a priori, any fart must produce a lingering and detectable stink, then absence of smellable stink is evidence for the absence of recent fart.
On the other hand, if we think, reasonably and a priori, some fart may be oderless, then absence of smellable stink is not evidence for the absence of recent fart.
However, attempt to relax expectation ad hoc and a posteriori so as to accommodate absence of evidence, as practiced by christians and required to sustain belief in any unique tenants, is evidence they never knew what the fuck they were talking about and continue to make it up as they go.
