Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?

Post by Consul »

Steve3007 wrote: July 21st, 2021, 9:27 am
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.
This 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.
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.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?

Post by RJG »

Consul wrote:But my point is that it is just not true that absence of evidence is never evidence of absence.
The absence of X can never be X. The absence of evidence can never be evidence. [~X=X is logically impossible].

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"].
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?

Post by Steve3007 »

Consul wrote:All defeasibly, fallibly justified beliefs can become unjustified if new evidence turns up which rebuts or undermines the old evidence.
Yes, or if new evidence turns up where none was there before.
But my point is that it is just not true that absence of evidence is never evidence of absence.
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.
User avatar
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?

Post by chewybrian »

3017Metaphysician wrote: July 21st, 2021, 3:10 pm
chewybrian wrote: July 21st, 2021, 2:34 pm
RJG wrote: July 21st, 2021, 7:51 am
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.
There is no rational (logical) argument denying God's existence.

chewybrian wrote:It seems rational to be agnostic…
Agreed.

chewybrian wrote:We can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, so there you go.
Bingo! ...the belief or disbelief in God takes an act of (blind) faith, either way.
OK, 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.
Chewy!

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 :P
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.

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.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
AverageBozo
Posts: 502
Joined: May 11th, 2021, 11:20 am

Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?

Post by AverageBozo »

The absence of evidence is never ever 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.
-0+
Posts: 240
Joined: June 19th, 2014, 5:30 pm

Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?

Post by -0+ »

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.
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
-0+ wrote: July 18th, 2021, 1:37 am What does 'should' mean in "there should be evidence of p"?
"used in auxiliary function to express what is probable or expected" (Merriam-Webster)
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.
Consul wrote: July 19th, 2021, 3:40 pm 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.
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.
Consul wrote: July 19th, 2021, 3:40 pm 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.
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 ...
Consul wrote: July 19th, 2021, 3:40 pm 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,
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?
-0+
Posts: 240
Joined: June 19th, 2014, 5:30 pm

Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?

Post by -0+ »

Consul wrote: July 19th, 2021, 3:40 pm
-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.
If 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.
Mary just specified what proposition p is, for John to consider. If p is false, this doesn't imply Mary lied.

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.
Consul wrote: July 19th, 2021, 3:40 pm As I already remarked above, the search for evidence must be performed painstakingly so as not to make the mistake of failing to notice evidence that is there.
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%).
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.
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.

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.
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?

Post by Consul »

-0+ wrote: August 2nd, 2021, 4:55 am
Consul wrote: July 19th, 2021, 3:40 pm As I already remarked above, the search for evidence must be performed painstakingly so as not to make the mistake of failing to notice evidence that is there.
If something has to be perceptually experienced to qualify as evidence, is "failing to notice evidence that is there" paradoxical?
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.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

Consul wrote: August 3rd, 2021, 8:36 am
-0+ wrote: August 2nd, 2021, 4:55 am
Consul wrote: July 19th, 2021, 3:40 pm As I already remarked above, the search for evidence must be performed painstakingly so as not to make the mistake of failing to notice evidence that is there.
If something has to be perceptually experienced to qualify as evidence, is "failing to notice evidence that is there" paradoxical?
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.
Consul!

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.
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?

Post by Consul »

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.
Isn't there a possible world where it's always dark, or where it's always cold, or where people are always happy?
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
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?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Consul wrote: August 3rd, 2021, 8:49 am Isn't there a possible world where it's always dark, or where it's always cold, or where people are always happy?
Yes, of course. But the human-created concepts of "dark", "cold" and "happy" cannot meaningfully exist without their conceptual 'twins', "light", "warm" and "sad".
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?

Post by Consul »

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".
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.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

Consul wrote: August 3rd, 2021, 10:12 am
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".
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.
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.
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
User avatar
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?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Consul wrote: August 3rd, 2021, 10:12 am
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".
Consul wrote: August 3rd, 2021, 10:12 am 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.
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.]
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
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?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Many apologies. I got the quoting all wrong, and confused the dialogue as a result. 😊 This is how it should've appeared.
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".
Consul wrote: August 3rd, 2021, 10:12 am 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.
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.]
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021