All defeasibly, fallibly justified beliefs can become unjustified if new evidence turns up which rebuts or undermines the old evidence. But my point is that it is just not true that absence of evidence is never evidence of absence.Steve3007 wrote: ↑July 21st, 2021, 9:27 amThis a particular example of a search space (a fridge) which can be exhausted in a very short period of time and an object (milk) that can be unambiguously identified in a very short period of time. Both periods of time are near instantaneous. But not all situations are like that. It doesn't necessarily follow that we suspend belief in those situations. For example, take the proposition that there is an extant "missing link" species between two other species somewhere on the planet. We can (in my view) justifiably believe that the species in question does not currently exist because it has not been found. Obviously if it's found we'll change that belief. Beliefs can and do change in the light of new evidence. But that doesn't stop the belief from justifiably existing now.Consul wrote:In this sense, for example, if there is milk in your fridge, there should be perceptual evidence for it that you can obtain by opening its door and looking inside, since milk is easily visible stuff. And if you do so (thoroughly) without finding any (positive) perceptual evidence for the presence of milk, then this is (negative) perceptual evidence for the absence of milk, and you are thereby justified in believing that there is no milk in your fridge.
Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?
- Consul
- Posts: 6036
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?
The absence of X can never be X. The absence of evidence can never be evidence. [~X=X is logically impossible].Consul wrote:But my point is that it is just not true that absence of evidence is never evidence of absence.
In your previous scenario, if your evidence-of-absence = "the non-presence of milk", then what is the absence-of-evidence???
...if you have no evidence, then you have no evidence of anything (including the presence or non-presence of milk).
The absence of evidence can NEVER be evidence of absence. [Logical fallacy is "appeal to ignorance"].
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?
Yes, or if new evidence turns up where none was there before.Consul wrote:All defeasibly, fallibly justified beliefs can become unjustified if new evidence turns up which rebuts or undermines the old evidence.
Yes, at least in the sense that absence of evidence for the existence of some thing can be used as a basis for a belief that that thing doesn't exist. As I said, if it wasn't ever used like that then we would indefinitely suspend our belief/disbelief about the existence of an infinite number of possible things. Most people, quite sensibly, don't indulge in that kind of pathological agnosticism. We often hold the provisional belief that things don't exist if we've never yet seen what we regard as evidence for their existence.But my point is that it is just not true that absence of evidence is never evidence of absence.
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?
I agree with you if I am following you. Consciousness works both from the bottom up and the top down. It is both determined and free. We don't see how it could be so, and so we generally try to pick one side or the other and fit our understanding to it, ignoring the inconsistencies. My conclusion is that consciousness itself (just the thoughts, opinions, intentions and such) is not material. Of course, I can't prove nor disprove that, just like God, so it's only an opinion. The real answer is that we just don't know.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑July 21st, 2021, 3:10 pmChewy!chewybrian wrote: ↑July 21st, 2021, 2:34 pmOK, we are on the same page. I know you are the king of logic, and I wondered if you might have an interesting take on that.RJG wrote: ↑July 21st, 2021, 7:51 amThere is no rational (logical) argument denying God's existence.chewybrian wrote:I agree with you about that particular reason for denying God, though it begs the question of what a rational argument would be.
Agreed.chewybrian wrote:It seems rational to be agnostic…
Bingo! ...the belief or disbelief in God takes an act of (blind) faith, either way.chewybrian wrote:We can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, so there you go.
Just a footnote if I may. The irony is that the human mind itself (consciousness) can neither be explained rationally, or exist rationally. For instance, the conscious and subconscious mind working together violates the rules of non-contradiction/bivalence in a priori logic; it (the mind) would be considered logically impossible. Metaphorically and Existentially, this is also why human Beings who live life, at some point, usually find life as not just an a or b proposition. It's both. Engineering, on the other hand, is primarily ' a or b ' (apply the wrong formula to the structural beam and it fails-the design is either right or wrong). And in a funny way, this is why some people argue that it is harder for many engineers to be sensitive managers or people-persons. It's not really required for the job.
So, hate to take the wind out of one's sails, but living life isn't all that logical. Unless you believe in a Platonic existence
I was only trying to get an opinion from RJG, because I know he is very locked into logic. I was just curious what he would say.
I think logic is the beginning of wisdom, though it is only as strong as the assumptions to which we assent. When we are young, we get "facts" from our parents and teachers, and it seems the world can eventually be fully understood. Logic follows from the so-called facts, until eventually we arrive at some inconsistencies. We might suppress the problems, or adopt an opposite view from the one provided by the adults, in order to maintain the illusion that we understand what is going on. If you can't break out of the need to know, I think it leads to anxiety, depression and anger, as the world is simply not going to play along with your need. Ultimately, a greater level of understanding (or at least the beginning of wisdom) can be achieved when we admit to ourselves how little we really do know. Then, we can learn how to be better, happier people, to be creative and comfortable in our own skins without the burden of having to try to jamb reality into the box of our preferred understanding.
Logic is a powerful tool for building bridges and such, as you say. It never fails in the "if...then" universe, as long as the "if" is valid. In terms of material objects, we have some very strong "ifs" upon which we can build. But, when it comes to what really matters (happiness, fulfillment, personal growth, empathy...), we don't have that strong foundation upon which to lay the blocks. We have to continue resetting our opinions in these areas, a la Descartes, acknowledging they are always just best guesses. It seems we can make the best progress using both both left and right brain thinking, east and west attitudes, logic and feelings. We just have to focus on the results without getting too caught up on the inability to prove the things that cannot be proven.
-
- Posts: 502
- Joined: May 11th, 2021, 11:20 am
Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?
Logic does not support the statement “absence of evidence is evidence of absence” as being true.
There is no evidence that supports the statement.
If you like to believe in the non-existence of something, you may do as you like, but know that your belief, supported by neither logic nor experience, is based purely on blind faith.
-
- Posts: 240
- Joined: June 19th, 2014, 5:30 pm
Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?
Okay, evidence is something that is possessed by a Subject, if the Subject has perceptually experienced this.Consul wrote: ↑July 19th, 2021, 3:40 pm The central form of evidence in empirical science is perceptual evidence in the form of perceptual experience; and there's a distinction between things or facts which are perceptually accessible (in practice or in principle at least) and ones which are not.
[...]
There is no perceptual evidence for something before somebody had some perceptual experience of it. For instance, I have no visual or auditory evidence for there being a fly in my living room unless I actually see or hear a fly in my living room. My seeing or hearing (or my seeming to see or hear) a fly is my evidence for there being a fly.
Ideas of "should" (including what is probable or expected) are subjective, but given that perceptual evidence is ultimately based on subjective experience, this topic can be considered relative to what a Subject has experienced.
There are disputes about what qualifies as milk, milk can be an ingredient of other things in the fridge, and there could be trace amounts of spilt milk in the fridge that are not easy to detect. But if milk is defined as, "a transparent bottle of milky liquid (anything that looks like cows' milk; no need to chemically analyse it) with a label that has 'milk' on it", then this may be easier to detect and distinguish from ~milk (anything that doesn't qualify as milk, including cold air).
In addition to distinguishing between what is perceptually accessible or not, a distinction can also be made between what is perceptually accessible and what has been perceptually accessed; between imaginary/potential evidence that can be perceptually obtained, and actual evidence that has already been perceptually obtained. According to first quote above, there is no perceptual evidence until it has been obtained (perceptually experienced)?
If there is milk in the fridge, John may think there should be evidence of this if he is confident he is able to obtain evidence of this, especially if he is aware of a method he can apply to obtain this (eg, open the fridge door and have a good look inside), but until he actually obtains some evidence he has an absence of evidence. Once he obtains some evidence, he no longer has an absence of evidence.
Opinions may differ on how on how conclusive this evidence is (it is possible there is milk in fridge but John failed to find it), but if John searches the fridge thoroughly for milk and doesn't find any, it may be widely accepted that he has at least some evidence for absence of milk in fridge (evidence doesn't have to be conclusive to be evidence), and it would not be unreasonable for John to believe with some degree of confidence that there is no milk in the fridge (enough confidence to bet money on this).
The key question here is: Is this evidence for the absence of milk equivalent to, or an inference of, an absence of evidence for the presence of milk, so it can be said that (A) absence of evidence for milk in fridge is (B) evidence for absence of milk in fridge; or is something additional needed to get from A to B?
If John additionally believes that if milk is present in the fridge then he should have evidence for this, and he doesn't have evidence for this, then he may believe this means he has evidence for absence of milk in the fridge, but how logical is this? He may actually have evidence for absence of milk in fridge, but does this evidence logically arise from absence of evidence, or from perceptual experience he has regarding milk in fridge? Is it more accurate to say his evidence for absence is positive rather than negative, and that his evidence for the presence of milk in fridge is negative rather than zero?
All the variables in question here can be analysed along with their datatypes. Care is needed when variables have different datatypes, especially when dealing with opposites and using operators like logical-not (~) and unary-minus (-) because not all opposites are binary.
True and False are opposites that are normally binary. ~True is False; ~False is True.
Positive and Negative are opposites but they are not binary if Zero is another possible value. ~Positive doesn't imply Negative. ~Positive can be Zero or Negative; ~Negative can be Positive or Zero; ~Zero can be Positive or Negative.
Regarding unary-minus (-): -Positive is Negative; -Negative is Positive; -Zero is Zero.
Likewise, For and Against are opposites but they are not binary if it is possible to be Neutral (neither For nor Against). Logical errors are common when trinary datatypes like these are treated as if they are binary. For example: "If you are not for me then you are against me".
The topic question can be rephrased: "Is there any value of X that allows Absence of Evidence of X to be Evidence of Absence of X?"
A value of X for consideration here can be "milk in fridge". This is a specific example of more general "Y in D" where D is a domain and Y is something that can be in D.
These variables can be analysed in more detail, but the key variables for analysis here may be Absence and Evidence. It may be more useful to view these as functions rather than variables: Absence(P) and Evidence(P), where P is a parameter that refers to what each function is of (Absence of P; Evidence of P).
Absent and Present are opposites that can be binary. If Absence means Zero Presence, and Absence of P means P is Absent, then Absent(P) evaluates "quantity of P is Zero" (if Zero then True else False), and Present(P) evaluates "quantity of P is not Zero" ... Absent(P) and Present(P) are predicate functions that return either True or False, and they are mutually exclusive and complementary so: ~Present(P) = Absent(P); ~Absent(P) = Present(P).
Distinctions can be made between: evidence as perceptual experience (a description of what has been experienced); "evidence of P" (evidence that is relevant to P (eg, seeing a pie in oven may not be relevant to milk in fridge)); "evidence for P" (evidence that supports the truth of P; evidence can be For, Against, or Neutral with respect to P); and an evaluation of how much the truth of P is supported by evidence.
Can perceptual evidence itself be negative? Maybe not, but an evaluation of accumulated evidence with respect to P ("Evidence") can be expressed numerically and this evaluation can either be: Positive (increases support for truth of P), Negative (decreases support for truth of P), or Zero (neither increases nor decreases support for P) ... Support for truth of P is -Support for truth of ~P.
Additional predicate functions can be defined: Positive(P) evaluates "P > 0"; Negative(P) evaluates "P < 0"; Zero(P) evaluates "P = 0"; NonZero(P) evaluates "P < 0 or P > 0". Absent(P) is equivalent to Zero(P). Present(P) is equivalent to NonZero(P).
All these predicate functions require P to be quantifiable, while Evidence(P) requires P to be a proposition that can be supported (positively or negatively) by perceptual evidence.
if it is accepted that Evidence(P) can be Negative, Zero, or Positive then ...
Positive(Evidence(P)) is Negative(Evidence(~P))
Negative(Evidence(P)) is Positive(Evidence(~P))
Zero(Evidence(P)) is Zero(Evidence(~P))
NonZero(Evidence(P)) is NonZero(Evidence(~P))
Absent(Evidence(P)) is Absent(Evidence(~P))
Present(Evidence(P)) is Present(Evidence(~P))
It seems the "is" expression in the topic question can be rephrased more explicitly as: Absent(Evidence(Present(X))) is Present(Evidence(Absent(X)))?
... However ...
If Q is Present(X) then ~Q is Absent(X)
A is Absent(Evidence(Q))
B is Present(Evidence(~Q))
A is Absent(Evidence(~Q))
A is ~Present(Evidence(~Q))
A is ~B
Going back to ...
Adding "(positive)" and "(negative)", and just saying "milk" rather than "milk in fridge" may change things ... "Without" normally means absent, but Absent(Positive(P)) is questionable. If it is acceptable to interpret "without" as "not" (not having evidence that positively supports presence of milk) in this case, then:
X' is "milk"
Q' is Present(X')
A' is ~Positive(Evidence(Q'))
B' is Negative(Evidence(~Q'))
...
A' does not imply A because ~Positive can be Negative or Zero:
If Zero, then Evidence(~Q') is also Zero;
If Negative, then Evidence(~Q') is Positive.
Either way, Evidence(~Q') can't be Negative.
A' can't be B'.
A' can be B but only if Evidence(Q') happens to be Negative, not if Evidence(Q') is Absent.
Changing X' to "milk in fridge" doesn't change above reasoning. However ...
If it is accepted that John can: (A'') have Zero perceptual evidence for the presence of milk; and (B) have NonZero Evidence for absence of milk in fridge ... then how can John get from A'' to B without acquiring any perceptual evidence that is relevant to presence of milk in fridge?
If A'' is True, it is also possible that B is False (eg, if John has no perceptual evidence of anything), so it doesn't follow that A'' is B, just that A'' and B can both happen to be True without there necessarily being any logical connection between the two. Something additional is needed to get from A'' to B. What is missing here?
One thing missing from both X' and A'' is "in fridge". This allows A'' to be interpreted differently from A. Evidence(Q) is not necessarily restricted to perceptually experiencing presence of milk. Evidence(Q) can evaluate any perceptual evidence that is relevant to Q (can increase or decrease support for Q). When X is "milk in fridge", relevant evidence can include perceiving things in fridge that are ~milk.
It may seem that seeing a bottle of beer (~milk) in fridge doesn't qualify as relevant evidence regarding milk in fridge because presence of beer in fridge doesn't imply absence of milk in fridge. The fridge can contain both milk and beer. However, the beer occupies space in the fridge that cannot also be occupied by milk, so it can be concluded there is no milk in this sub-domain of the fridge. This is a little bit of Negative Evidence (decreasing support) for Q. If more space inside the fridge is found to be occupied by things that are not milk, this adds a little more Negative Evidence for Q. If it looks like every space inside the fridge that could possibly be occupied by milk is occupied by things that are ~milk, then it may be reasonably concluded with some (if not total) confidence from accumulated perceptual evidence relevant to Q that there is Zero milk in the fridge.
John can't have NonZero Evidence for absence of milk in fridge (~Q) unless he also has NonZero Evidence for presence of milk in fridge (Q). He can't have one without the other. If he believes he has evidence for ~Q without having any evidence for Q, he may just need to realise how his evidence is relevant to Q?
-
- Posts: 240
- Joined: June 19th, 2014, 5:30 pm
Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?
Mary just specified what proposition p is, for John to consider. If p is false, this doesn't imply Mary lied.Consul wrote: ↑July 19th, 2021, 3:40 pmIf John knows Mary didn't lie, he knows (after having turned over 50 cards) that the 51st card is the Queen of Hearts before turning it over, since there is no other possibility. He doesn't know this in advance if he doesn't know whether Mary lied or not.-0+ wrote: ↑July 18th, 2021, 1:37 amIf Mary places 51 playing cards face down on a table and says to John, "p is: one of these cards is the Queen of Hearts", it could be argued: if p is true then there is evidence of p on the table; John is just unable to view this evidence.
Initially John only sees 51 cards face down on the table. He has no evidence for p and no evidence for ~p. Relative to his lack of evidence, p and ~p are both possible. What can he conclude?
If John turns a card over, this reveals something. This provides him with some evidence. If this card is the Queen of Hearts, this is conclusive evidence for p. If this is another card then this may provide a little bit of evidence for ~p.
If he turns 50 cards over and none of these are the Queen of Hearts, this may provide a lot of evidence for ~p. If p is true, the chances are he would have uncovered conclusive evidence for this by now. But one card remains unturned. This may or may not be the Queen of Hearts. How can he usefully calculate the probability that p is true (or not true) at this stage?
If he turns over the 51st card and this is also not the Queen of Hearts, he may finally have conclusive evidence for ~p (assuming no card trickery).
In order have conclusive evidence for absence of X in Y, Y (eg, 51 cards on the table) needs to be finite, John's examination of Y needs to be exhaustive (he needs to have full access to Y and not leave any card unturned) and he needs to be able to tell the difference between X (Queen of Hearts) and ~X.
However, what John knows can make a difference.
If he knows that the 51 cards were randomly selected from a standard pack of 52 playing cards and turning over 50 cards hasn't revealed Queen of Hearts then his probability that p is true is 1/2.
If he knows that a Joker was added to the standard pack prior to random selection then his probability changes to 1/3.
If he knows Jack of Hearts was subtracted from the standard pack prior to random selection then his probability changes to 1. He doesn't need to turn over any of the cards. Seeing 51 cards face down on the table can be enough evidence for him.
All of John's probabilities are relative to what he (thinks he) knows.
If he knows that the 51 cards were selected non-randomly by Mary from a standard pack then his probability may vary depending on any additional knowledge/evidence he has (eg: statistical data from previous tests she has conducted; her body language) that indicates whether she is more or less likely to have selected Queen of Hearts.
If Mary knows what she has selected then her probability that p is true will either be 0 or 1. Her probabilities are relative to what she (thinks she) knows. These may be different to John's probabilities if her knowledge is different from his.
If something has to be perceptually experienced to qualify as evidence, is "failing to notice evidence that is there" paradoxical?
A search of a small domain doesn't need to be thorough to have some evidence and confidence that something is absent in that domain. A quick look in the fridge may be enough for John to declare "there is no milk in this fridge". If Mary questions this, he may be confident enough to say, "I bet you $100 there are no bottles of milk in the fridge". If she asks, "Are you willing to bet your life on this?", he may hesitate. Is he confident enough to do this? The more thoroughly he looks inside the fridge, the more confident he may become that there are no bottles of milk in the fridge, but can he ever be 100% confident that he hasn't overlooked something?
Confidence can be evaluated as a percentage from statistical data. Where to draw a binary line in this continuum of confidence between confident enough to declare "there is no milk in this fridge" and not confident enough to declare this? Some may draw the line at 95%. Others may draw the line at 99%. Any such line is arbitrary.
It may be easy for John to declare "there is no milk in the fridge". Putting his money where his mouth is may be harder. Putting his life on the line may be a lot harder. The higher the stakes, the closer to 100% confidence he is likely to want to draw his line before he gambles on this. Any gamble requires drawing a line somewhere below 100% (although faith could be applied to artificially raise confidence to 100%).
It may be reasonable for John to claim he has no evidence for ET life without also claiming there is no ET life anywhere. Mary may claim she has evidence of ET life. If she shows this to John then she can claim that he now has evidence too. However, he may reject this evidence as irrelevant or evaluate this as providing zero support for ET life.Consul wrote: ↑July 19th, 2021, 3:40 pm Of course, if the search area is the whole universe, then we'll never be justified in claiming e.g. that there is nowhere evidence for extraterrestrial life; and then we'll never be justified in claiming that there is no extraterrestrial life anywhere in the universe.
If the universe is finite and John looks in the fridge for ET life without noticing any, he can claim he has evidence against ET life because the fridge is a sub-domain of the universe. However, this sub-domain is a minuscule percentage of the universe, so any reasonable evaluation of his evidence must also be minuscule.
- Consul
- Posts: 6036
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?
You're right, if evidence is perceptual experience, then an attentive observer won't fail to notice it. For example, my seeing of a car is evidence for there being a car, and I'm conscious of my seeing it. So I should have written instead:
"The search for evidence must be performed painstakingly so as not to make the mistake of failing to notice perceptible signs of what we are looking for."
Natural, physical signs or symptoms exist perception-independently.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?
Consul!Consul wrote: ↑August 3rd, 2021, 8:36 amYou're right, if evidence is perceptual experience, then an attentive observer won't fail to notice it. For example, my seeing of a car is evidence for there being a car, and I'm conscious of my seeing it. So I should have written instead:
"The search for evidence must be performed painstakingly so as not to make the mistake of failing to notice perceptible signs of what we are looking for."
Natural, physical signs or symptoms exist perception-independently.
Question, is the evidence of absence like the unity of opposites? The simple examples are light/dark, hot/cold, happy/sad, etc. where having one without the other, is meaningless.
― Albert Einstein
- Consul
- Posts: 6036
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?
Isn't there a possible world where it's always dark, or where it's always cold, or where people are always happy?3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 3rd, 2021, 8:40 am Question, is the evidence of absence like the unity of opposites? The simple examples are light/dark, hot/cold, happy/sad, etc. where having one without the other, is meaningless.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8265
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?
Yes, of course. But the human-created concepts of "dark", "cold" and "happy" cannot meaningfully exist without their conceptual 'twins', "light", "warm" and "sad".
"Who cares, wins"
- Consul
- Posts: 6036
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?
In a world where nobody has ever been sad, the people there may have a concept of happiness without also having a concept of sadness.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 3rd, 2021, 10:07 am Yes, of course. But the human-created concepts of "dark", "cold" and "happy" cannot meaningfully exist without their conceptual 'twins', "light", "warm" and "sad".
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?
Intriguing topic. In this possible world, one would have to consider a different set of "laws" in consciousness (ontology). Rational thought itself, could be conceived as a static state, much like mathematics. In that sense, the concept of happiness (or sadness) just is. There is no 'concept', per se.Consul wrote: ↑August 3rd, 2021, 10:12 amIn a world where nobody has ever been sad, the people there may have a concept of happiness without also having a concept of sadness.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 3rd, 2021, 10:07 am Yes, of course. But the human-created concepts of "dark", "cold" and "happy" cannot meaningfully exist without their conceptual 'twins', "light", "warm" and "sad".
― Albert Einstein
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8265
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?
Consul wrote: ↑August 3rd, 2021, 10:12 amPattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 3rd, 2021, 10:07 am Yes, of course. But the human-created concepts of "dark", "cold" and "happy" cannot meaningfully exist without their conceptual 'twins', "light", "warm" and "sad".OK, let's make the point crystal-clear, as you've obviously missed it:
Please offer a definition of happiness that doesn't include or require "sadness", or any synonym thereof. [Nor should it define happiness by using synonyms for happiness, without saying what they mean.]
"Who cares, wins"
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8265
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 3rd, 2021, 10:07 am Yes, of course. But the human-created concepts of "dark", "cold" and "happy" cannot meaningfully exist without their conceptual 'twins', "light", "warm" and "sad".
OK, let's make the point crystal-clear, as you've obviously missed it:
Please offer a definition of happiness that doesn't include or require "sadness", or any synonym thereof. [Nor should it define happiness by using synonyms for happiness, without saying what they mean.]
"Who cares, wins"
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023