Evidence and probability go hand in hand?

[Edwardo Piet]

Do evidence and lack of evidence and probability and improbability go hand in hand?
Note: Public poll.

[Tiberius]

Whilst evidence might relate somewhat to probability, lack of evidence doesn't relate at all to improbability. The argument that there is a "lack of evidence" for contradicting theories does not necessarily mean they are improbable though.

[Edwardo Piet]

There is zero evidence for the supernatural, doesn't that make the supernatural improbable?
Or is that JUST because of the complexity thing?
I heard Carl Sagan said, and apparently he had took it from someone else, something like "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is that what you mean Adrian?
I just thought that because there's ZERO evidence for the supernatural that is at least partly connected to its improbability.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I'd have to say No. 1 because nothing in science (evidence based) is certain simply very, very probable (or vice versa).

Kyu

[Tiberius]

There is zero evidence for the supernatural, doesn't that make the supernatural improbable?
Or is that JUST because of the complexity thing?
I heard Carl Sagan said, and apparently he had took it from someone else, something like "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is that what you mean Adrian?
I just thought that because there's ZERO evidence for the supernatural that is at least partly connected to its improbability.

I guess it really comes down to what you define as evidence. For example, String theory has no evidence at all, other than particle physics and mathematics predicting it. So is String theory automatically "improbable"? No. The whole thing about improbability is you need to know something about the event in order to deduce it's improbability.

For example, if I toss a coin, it is 50% improbable that the coin will land on heads. I can only make this assertion because I know that:

1) The coin has 2 sides (2 possible outcomes)
2) The coin is evenly weighted (we assume this for the maths)
3) The coin never lands on it's side

Take something that has no evidence, for example: GOD. What do we know about God in order to make a reasonable probability prediction about it? Nothing. If we are talking about a certain God in particular then yes we might have some additional information, but the whole "God" idea on it's own does not have any evidence, and so it is impossible to put an improbability value on it.

[Edwardo Piet]

There is zero evidence for the supernatural, doesn't that make the supernatural improbable?
Or is that JUST because of the complexity thing?
I heard Carl Sagan said, and apparently he had took it from someone else, something like "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is that what you mean Adrian?
I just thought that because there's ZERO evidence for the supernatural that is at least partly connected to its improbability.

I guess it really comes down to what you define as evidence. For example, String theory has no evidence at all, other than particle physics and mathematics predicting it. So is String theory automatically "improbable"? No. The whole thing about improbability is you need to know something about the event in order to deduce it's improbability.

For example, if I toss a coin, it is 50% improbable that the coin will land on heads. I can only make this assertion because I know that:

1) The coin has 2 sides (2 possible outcomes)
2) The coin is evenly weighted (we assume this for the maths)
3) The coin never lands on it's side

Take something that has no evidence, for example: GOD. What do we know about God in order to make a reasonable probability prediction about it? Nothing. If we are talking about a certain God in particular then yes we might have some additional information, but the whole "God" idea on it's own does not have any evidence, and so it is impossible to put an improbability value on it.

So what makes you think the whole "God" idea is so improbable if you can't estimate his improbability due to lack of evidence? Complexity?

[Kyuuketsuki]

So what makes you think the whole "God" idea is so improbable if you can't estimate his improbability due to lack of evidence? Complexity?

To my mind because it throws rationality out of the window ...if you allow "god dun it" as an explanation you no longer have to explain anything.

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah but the estimation isn't merely intutive, its lack of evidence, estimated improbabiility and the fact that God is far more complex and improbable than the explanation he gives.
Adrian, you say that there is no evidence for string theory, therefore by my mind it would be improbable.
But is there really no evidence for it? Surely it is self-evident that string theory is mathamatically sound and it works. Surely that counts as evidence?

[Darwinian]

There's plenty of evidence for string theory. However, it's all mathmatical so perhaps that doesn't quite count in the same way that there is evidence for evolution which is of course a FACT!

Anyway, if the LHC discovers extra dimensions then that would certainly be a shot on the arm.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes not exactly the same kind of evidence for evolution, but its the same in the sense, both are scientific evidence.
Physics is science for example and you use maths to help yourself understand physics. Maths and other types of scientific evidence both aid in helping us understand facts about the universe.