Atheism 101: The Null Hypothesis

[little_monkey]

An excellent video on who has the burden of proof.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIcUpIufFdA#at=274

[Foxaèr]

I just made the courtroom argument in the proving a negative thread, before watching this video.

I have always attempted to explain the burden of proof lies with the individual making the positive, extraordinary claim, but the dumb theists never seem to understand that.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence.

Sometimes we just haven't looked hard enough.

But of course, this only applies to things that we have a reason to think may exist. For example, in evolutionary biology, scientists would predict where fossils would turn up, and they'll go look for it. If they haven't found it after 3 tries, doesn't mean it isn't there, it could still be there. Which is why science doesn't concern itself with proving nonexistence.

As for god, the god hypothesis hasn't been raised for many years, we have no reason to think that such a thing even exists. Just like no one will fund a research project that seeks to find the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, because why would you even think it exists?

Edit: oops, forgot to add that this doesn't apply to pseudo, new age, traditional, alternate medicine. When an alternate medical treatment is tested and does not exhibit any effects beyond the placebo, it doesn't have that effect. That is evidence of absence and absence of evidence. The drug for all intents and purposes doesn't work. Cannot believe how often they use this absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence to say alternate medicine is just as good as mainstream.

[Ryantology]

After thousands of years, absence of evidence is powerfully suggestive of absence.

[pocaracas]

absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence.

Yep.. except for this detail, I liked the video.

[Esquilax]

absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence.

Sometimes we just haven't looked hard enough.

I always feel like I have to be super-strict with my definitions around this point though, because if you give a theist apologist an inch here, they'll take a yard. And then treat that yard as self evident. Forever...

With things that exist, there is always evidence, even if we haven't found it yet. The evidence isn't absent, it's just presently unseen. And one without evidence for something isn't justified in believing it to exist, either.

I know you're deploying this phrase in its intellectually honest form, but when theists do it in a debate, they're just attempting to justify the belief without evidence they already have. So, generally speaking I do take absence of evidence to equal evidence of absence, at least in a soft, agnostic kind of way.

As for god, the god hypothesis hasn't been raised for many years, we have no reason to think that such a thing even exists. Just like no one will fund a research project that seeks to find the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, because why would you even think it exists?

The better question with magical claims is, how could you test it at all? When you look at so-called christian scientists, they never seem to be conducting tests for their god, just ones to disprove those aspects of accepted science that pose problems for their chosen dogma. That's the problem one runs into when one spends half their time trying to define their god away from investigation, and the rest in a lab coat trying to give that same god an air of legitimacy. Suddenly, you find yourself with nowhere to go.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

@Esquilax

Hm, yea I know theists always use absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence to their advantage while it's just good science education to know that it doesn't equal. But yea, that would only reduce god to one of the millions of things that humans have imagined, each with almost the same improbability of existing. Which theists don't get.

Which is why i added the second part, which is the god hypothesis does not fit into any existing knowledge and cannot be proposed if one is honest. if it is we'll move on to how to test god. Then find out that god question is not a good scientific question because it' not testable. But if you say that they'll say their god is outside the scope of science. Not understanding that everything that is real and has a real effect on real things is not outside the scope of science, considering science is a method of objective investigation.

But it's good to have them attempting to disprove mainstream science as long as their results are honestly represented. Because science does work that way. But since they're lying about so much, and are so incredibly bias that their work cannot be taken seriously :/ it's not at all productive.