Posts: 3188
Threads: 8
Joined: December 9, 2011
Reputation:
31
Absence of Evidence
April 17, 2012 at 8:42 am
An oft-repeated argument on both theistic and atheistic sides is that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". This is usually presented as a part of an accepted premise - "you can't prove a negative".
Now, I'd like to put this statement in perspective and divide the so-called unprovable statements into two categories.
1. Statements with a subject so ill-defined, generic and changeable that neither it's positive nor its negative form are provable.
2. Statements which are provable in the positive form.
Let's take the case of Russell's teapot. Assume that it is a standard-issue, 19th century white-china teapot with floral patters, having the capacity to hold 500 ml of water and it is to be found between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. With a specific definition of Russell's teapot like this and with advanced enough technology, we can take a picture of the the whole area between Mars and Jupiter and with good enough resolution, look for the teapot. If we see such a teapot, the positive claim - "There is a Russell's teapot" would be proven. But is we don't find it, the negative claim - "There is no Russell's teapot" would be proven as well. If it did exist, it would've been seen in the image.
This may not apply to all the cases due to imprecise attributes or limitations of technology, but I believe we can safely say that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence unless presence of such evidence can be reasonably expected". Further, I'd add - "Yes, you can prove a negative in some cases". Thus, I'd say that when theists argue "You can't prove that god doesn't exist", instead of replying with "You can't prove a negative", we should say "Come up with a precise enough definition and we will".
Posts: 5389
Threads: 52
Joined: January 3, 2010
Reputation:
48
RE: Absence of Evidence
April 17, 2012 at 9:03 am
it would be more accurate to say that until evidence is produced we have no valid reason to believe...in Russell's teapot, in unicorns or god/s.
![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif)
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
Posts: 3188
Threads: 8
Joined: December 9, 2011
Reputation:
31
RE: Absence of Evidence
April 17, 2012 at 9:21 am
(April 17, 2012 at 9:03 am)Zen Badger Wrote: it would be more accurate to say that until evidence is produced we have no valid reason to believe...in Russell's teapot, in unicorns or god/s.
Whether to believe or not is not what is being discussed here, is it?
Posts: 5336
Threads: 198
Joined: June 24, 2010
Reputation:
77
RE: Absence of Evidence
April 17, 2012 at 9:24 am
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence if we can reasonably expect to find evidence given the claim.
For example, the Loch Ness monster does not exist. I can make that claim because they went through the lake with sonar detection and found nothing. Although this is technically an argument from silence, we should expect to find some reading given that Nessie is supposed to be a dinosaur swimming in a relatively small body of water. If a dinosaur existed, we should reasonably expect to find evidence when we went looking.
To use another example, if a miracle working godman was wandering around 1st century Judea raising the dead, healing the sick, casting out demons and causing all manner of political and religious uproar, it's reasonable to think some 1st century Roman or Jewish source would have commented on him.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Posts: 5389
Threads: 52
Joined: January 3, 2010
Reputation:
48
RE: Absence of Evidence
April 17, 2012 at 9:40 am
(April 17, 2012 at 9:21 am)genkaus Wrote: (April 17, 2012 at 9:03 am)Zen Badger Wrote: it would be more accurate to say that until evidence is produced we have no valid reason to believe...in Russell's teapot, in unicorns or god/s.
Whether to believe or not is not what is being discussed here, is it?
To believe or to know?
I believe there is life on other planets for good statistical reasons.
But until we actually find substantive evidence I don't know .
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
Posts: 3188
Threads: 8
Joined: December 9, 2011
Reputation:
31
RE: Absence of Evidence
April 17, 2012 at 9:42 am
(April 17, 2012 at 9:40 am)Zen Badger Wrote: (April 17, 2012 at 9:21 am)genkaus Wrote: (April 17, 2012 at 9:03 am)Zen Badger Wrote: it would be more accurate to say that until evidence is produced we have no valid reason to believe...in Russell's teapot, in unicorns or god/s.
Whether to believe or not is not what is being discussed here, is it?
To believe or to know?
I believe there is life on other planets for good statistical reasons.
But until we actually find substantive evidence I don't know .
To know.
Posts: 8709
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Absence of Evidence
April 17, 2012 at 10:18 am
What you describe would apply to scientific forms of evidence. I believe Popper's falsifiablity test would be a good response, as in "What test could confirm your claim?" Even still, philisophical arguments would fall into a separate class? Paley's watch. Anslem ontological arguement, Godel's proof, etc. Demands for evidence are not appropriate against philisophical proposals and some members start to sound like broken records stubbournly failing to see the distinction.
...provide evidence...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...
C'mon.
(April 17, 2012 at 8:42 am)genkaus Wrote: we should say "Come up with a precise enough definition [of god] and we will [produce evidence]". That won't go very far. Few have really considered the full implications of their beliefs. The reply will, "the God of the Bible," as if that were descriptive enough. We both know that theological concepts run the gambit. This Thursday I'm meeting with a group (Theology Pub) to discuss Christology and I'm sure there will be a variety of opinions expressed.
Posts: 5336
Threads: 198
Joined: June 24, 2010
Reputation:
77
RE: Absence of Evidence
April 17, 2012 at 11:05 am
(This post was last modified: April 17, 2012 at 11:22 am by DeistPaladin.)
(April 17, 2012 at 10:18 am)ChadWooters Wrote: What you describe would apply to scientific forms of evidence. I believe Popper's falsifiablity test would be a good response, as in "What test could confirm your claim?" Even still, philisophical arguments would fall into a separate class? Paley's watch. Anslem ontological arguement, Godel's proof, etc. Demands for evidence are not appropriate against philisophical proposals and some members start to sound like broken records stubbournly failing to see the distinction.
An important thing to be clear about regarding the burden of proof is that the required evidence rises in proportion to the nature of the claims made. Mundane claims require only testimony. Extraordinary claims require hard evidence.
Examples:
"I had lunch with my wife today" Mundane claim, accepted with its own testimony and lack of contrary evidence.
"I had lunch with the President Obama today" Grand claim requiring extensive proof.
"I had lunch with my deceased father today" Extraordinary claim requiring the most extraordinary of evidence to even be taken seriously. Even then, there would be skepticism and suspicion of a hoax.
The claims of Christianity are so extraordinary as to easily fall into the third category. "Blah blah blah, therefore God, (who must of course be the god of the Bible but that goes without saying)" isn't going to cut it. Words, if they are just mental concepts are going to fall short of the burden required by the nature of the claim.
Christians have not produced anything that would be called hard evidence. They can't by faith heal the sick, make the lame walk or cast out demons (as a repeatable test verified under medical peer review). They haven't produced magical relics like Paul's handkerchief that could supposedly heal the sick (again, presenting it for scientific peer review). They can't seem to summon an angel to appear on camera and be interviewed by reporters. This is the kind of evidence that would be compelling given the nature of Christianity's claims.
All the "proofs" for Jesus I've seen are the "blah blah blah, therefore Jesus". Further, most of these same arguments can easily be refitted to suit any other religion (I often hear Muslims making similar arguments for their own god). This falls way short of the evidence required, even if these arguments were sound.
So I'm not misunderstood here, I'm not saying logical arguments have no place in the presentation of a case. I'm saying that philosophical abstractions alone are not sufficient to meet the burden of proof.
If you don't agree, I can come up with logical arguments why you should believe I just had lunch with my deceased father.
(April 17, 2012 at 10:18 am)ChadWooters Wrote: The reply will, "the God of the Bible," as if that were descriptive enough. We both know that theological concepts run the gambit. This Thursday I'm meeting with a group (Theology Pub) to discuss Christology and I'm sure there will be a variety of opinions expressed.
A more intellectually forlorn topic would be hard to imagine.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Posts: 3188
Threads: 8
Joined: December 9, 2011
Reputation:
31
RE: Absence of Evidence
April 17, 2012 at 11:58 am
(April 17, 2012 at 10:18 am)ChadWooters Wrote: What you describe would apply to scientific forms of evidence. I believe Popper's falsifiablity test would be a good response, as in "What test could confirm your claim?" Even still, philisophical arguments would fall into a separate class? Paley's watch. Anslem ontological arguement, Godel's proof, etc. Demands for evidence are not appropriate against philisophical proposals and some members start to sound like broken records stubbournly failing to see the distinction.
...provide evidence...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...
C'mon.
If you read carefully, you'll see that this argument would apply to philosophical statements as well. In philosophy, the physical evidence is not as relevant, but the logical evidence is. If the logical proof for a philosophical statement cannot be constructed and by the nature of the statement such a proof is expected, then the absence of proof proves the invalidity of the statement.
|
