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
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?

Post by Terrapin Station »

-0+ wrote: August 7th, 2021, 9:25 am The main question here is: Are these phrases logically equivalent?
That hinges on semantics--the meaning folks apply to the phrases, so this isn't a different question than how people use the phrases.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?

Post by Steve3007 »

Pattern-chaser wrote:That we do not spend our time on these issues is about priority, not rationality. There are an infinite number of things we could spend our time thinking about. We tend to pursue the ones that interest us most, for whatever reason(s). That is rational and sensible. But, to dismiss possibilities - to conclude that they are impossible, or do not exist - is not logical or justifiable. Logic and reason seem to require that, under these circumstances, we suspend judgement; that we actively choose not to dismiss or disbelieve them, but only set them aside.
My point in picking out that line from the above was that I don't equate belief with dismissing or concluding that things are impossible. That's why I re-emphasized the conflation of belief with certainty. So if I say "I don't believe X" or "I believe not X" or whatever, because I haven't yet seen evidence of X, that (at least in my usage) is not the same as dismissing X or concluding that X is impossible. Beliefs are what I currently believe to be the case based on my understanding and on the balance of probabilities.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
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 »

Steve3007 wrote: August 7th, 2021, 1:46 pm
Pattern-chaser wrote:That we do not spend our time on these issues is about priority, not rationality. There are an infinite number of things we could spend our time thinking about. We tend to pursue the ones that interest us most, for whatever reason(s). That is rational and sensible. But, to dismiss possibilities - to conclude that they are impossible, or do not exist - is not logical or justifiable. Logic and reason seem to require that, under these circumstances, we suspend judgement; that we actively choose not to dismiss or disbelieve them, but only set them aside.
My point in picking out that line from the above was that I don't equate belief with dismissing or concluding that things are impossible. That's why I re-emphasized the conflation of belief with certainty. So if I say "I don't believe X" or "I believe not X" or whatever, because I haven't yet seen evidence of X, that (at least in my usage) is not the same as dismissing X or concluding that X is impossible. Beliefs are what I currently believe to be the case based on my understanding and on the balance of probabilities.

Yes, I take all your points concerning belief. My point concerns disbelief, specifically using fallacious reasoning* to dismiss things as false when we don't know if they're false, true or just nonsense.


* - e.g. that absence of evidence constitutes evidence of absence.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
-0+
Posts: 240
Joined: June 19th, 2014, 5:30 pm

Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?

Post by -0+ »

AverageBozo wrote: August 5th, 2021, 8:54 am Absence of evidence of a phenomenon is evidence of its complement. A phenomenon and its complement behave in accordance with the law of the excluded middle; they are mutually exclusive. Evidence of its complement is evidence of absence of the phenomenon. In this instance, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Definitions of 'phenomenon' vary ... Is this interpreting 'phenomenon' to mean something that is observed (perceptually experienced), implying that if the phenomenon is present then there must also be evidence for this, rather than something that is merely observable (perceptible; can be present without being observed)?

If X is something like perceptual experience whereby "presence of X" implies "there is evidence of X", and there is absence of evidence then it may be logically deduced that X is absent, but how can there be (perceptual) evidence of this? How can absence of perceptual experience be perceptually experienced?

If 'evidence' is expanded to include any data (logical, perceptual, etc) that positively or negatively supports the proposition in question, this needs to be expanded both ways.

This still applies:
Zero Evidence of P is Zero evidence of ~P
NonZero evidence for P is NonZero evidence against ~P (and vice versa)
Any evidence for a phenomenon's complement is (Present) evidence against the phenomenon.

(Note that while Absent/Present and Zero/NonZero are binary complementary opposites with excluded middle, Evidence For/Against are polar opposites with an included middle (Neutral) so they don't complement each other.)
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?

Post by RJG »

Steve3007 wrote:I think you're continuing to conflate belief with certainty, as has been discussed in various other topics (by both us and others). I see nothing invalid in saying "I've never seen any evidence of UFOs so, until I do, I don't believe they exist" or equivalently "...I believe that they don't exist".
It may be a belief, but it would be an irrationally held belief (and therefore an "invalid" belief).
User avatar
Leontiskos
Posts: 695
Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas

Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?

Post by Leontiskos »

Steve3007 wrote: August 7th, 2021, 7:40 am
RJG wrote:[Claiming that UFO's (or milk in the fridge) don't exist because we have no evidence (of their existence or non-existence) is logically invalid and unsound (aka "non-sensical").
I think you're continuing to conflate belief with certainty, as has been discussed in various other topics (by both us and others). I see nothing invalid in saying "I've never seen any evidence of UFOs so, until I do, I don't believe they exist" or equivalently "...I believe that they don't exist". It would only be wrong to say that if you thought beliefs were certainties that couldn't be revised in the light of fresh evidence. As I said in an earlier post, I regard suspending [dis]belief about the existence of the infinite number of things that I haven't yet seen evidence for as a kind of pathological agnosticism. In real life (as opposed to philosophy forums) people generally quite sensibly and rationally don't indulge in it.
It goes back to your point in this post, and which I elaborated in this post.

Evidence entails two terms: 1) The piece of evidence, and 2) The hypothesis that the evidence supports. (1) is posited as an effect; (2) is posited as a cause. That is, (2) is the cause that is thought to produce the evidence. Note: There are two different things at play.

Whether something is a true piece of evidence or a mere observation depends on whether one can draw an inference from it. Using the example from this post, there are two observations: "The human has no tail," and, "The dog has no tail." The first is a mere observation; the second is evidence for the hypothesis that the dog has lost a tail.

RJG is continually misrepresenting the claim by collapsing these two terms, (1) and (2), into one. You rightly pointed out that he collapses "for milk" and "for absence of milk" into one proposition, even though they are diametrically opposed.

To take the more useful example from this post, the precise claim is not that the cat doesn't exist because we have no evidence of the cat. Rather, the precise claim is that the cat does not exist because the evidence of sneezing/dander is absent. The evidence and the hypothesis are two different things. The evidence or lack thereof points to the hypothesis. Further, to say that "no sneezing" is not the absence of sneezing is absurd. It is the absence of sneezing. The observation of this absence just happens to be the kind of observation that warrants an inference regarding cats. The syllogism is instructive:
  1. If there is a cat living in the house, then the allergic person will sneeze.
  2. The allergic person is not sneezing.
  3. Therefore, there is no cat living in the house. {modus tollens}
To say that premise 2 does not indicate an absence is absurd.


The milk and the UFO are the same. In that case the observation is a visual perception and the hypothesis is the absence of some visually perceptible object. (If there is a UFO in my line of sight then I will perceive an aerial object; I do not perceive an aerial object; Therefore there is no UFO in my line of sight)

-Leontiskos
Wrestling with Philosophy since 456 BC

Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?

Post by RJG »

Either you have evidence or you don't. It's as simple as that.

Claiming that evidence is not-evidence [X=~X] or not-evidence is evidence [~X=X] is wholly non-sensical. Therefore, the "absence-of-evidence" can NEVER be "evidence-of-absence".

No amount of fast-talking or spin-making can defy simple logic.
User avatar
Leontiskos
Posts: 695
Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas

Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?

Post by Leontiskos »

RJG wrote: August 9th, 2021, 12:47 pm Either you have evidence or you don't. It's as simple as that. -- Claiming that evidence is not-evidence [X=~X] or vice versa [~X=X] is wholly non-sensical. Therefore the "absence-of-evidence" can NEVER be "evidence-of-absence".

No amount of fast-talking or spin-making can defy simple logic.
Your faux-logic was already definitively disproved in this post. You're just throwing symbols at the wall and hoping they stick ("[~X=X]"). You can't substitute anyone's claims into these symbols because the substitution immediately proves that your formalization is a misrepresentation or a strawman.

  1. If there is a cat living in the house, then the allergic person will sneeze.
  2. The allergic person is not sneezing.
  3. Therefore, there is no cat living in the house. {modus tollens}
Obviously (2) is an absence. Is it the absence of evidence or evidence in itself? Well, both, because the word "evidence" is quite flexible. If we consider 'sneezing' to be a piece of possible evidence (as we do in 1), then (2) indicates the absence of that evidence. If we consider 'not sneezing' to be a piece of positive evidence, then (2) indicates the presence of that evidence.

It is perfectly legitimate to look at the problem from either direction. It is a matter of semantics. To insist on one possible semantic usage to the exclusion of all others, as RJG and Terrapin Station have been doing, is silly. Both meanings are possible and are used in colloquial English, and both are logically sound once the speaker's intention is understood.
Wrestling with Philosophy since 456 BC

Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?

Post by RJG »

RJG wrote:Either you have evidence or you don't. It's as simple as that.

Claiming that evidence is not-evidence [X=~X] or not-evidence is evidence [~X=X] is wholly non-sensical. Therefore, the "absence-of-evidence" can NEVER be "evidence-of-absence".

No amount of fast-talking or spin-making can defy simple logic.
Leontiskos wrote:Your faux-logic was already definitively disproved in this post.
Nonsense. My point, again, is that you either have evidence or you don't. Period. You can't rationally (logically) claim "non-evidence is evidence" or "evidence is non-evidence" without violating simple logic. Otherwise you are just playing games (fast-talking; spin-making).

Leontiskos wrote: You're just throwing symbols at the wall and hoping they stick ("[~X=X]"). You can't substitute anyone's claims into these symbols because the substitution immediately proves that your formalization is a misrepresentation or a strawman.

1.If there is a cat living in the house, then the allergic person will sneeze.
2.The allergic person is not sneezing.
3.Therefore, there is no cat living in the house. {modus tollens}

Obviously (2) is an absence.
Not so. The "not-sneezing" is evidence (...not the "absence" of evidence!). It is the evidence-of-the-absence-of-the-cat. So, now tell me, where/what is the "absence-of-evidence"?

Leontiskos wrote:If we consider 'sneezing' to be a piece of possible evidence (as we do in 1),...
No, it is NOT the "sneezing" that we consider as "evidence" -of-absence, it is the "not-sneezing" that we consider as "evidence" -of-absence. If you want to consider the "sneezing" as evidence, then this is just more "evidence".

In other words:
1. "Sneezing" (1) is the evidence of the presence of the cat.
2. "Not-sneezing" (2) is the evidence of the absence of the cat.

So again, where/what is the "absence-of-evidence"?

Leontiskos wrote:...then (2) indicates the absence of that evidence.
Not so. The "not-sneezing" (in statement 2) is the "evidence" (of the absence of the cat), not the "absence-of evidence". So again, please tell me where/what is the "absence-of-evidence"?

Again, either you have evidence or you don't. It's as simple as that. -- You can't rationally (logically) claim "non-evidence is evidence" or "evidence is non-evidence" without violating simple logic.
User avatar
Leontiskos
Posts: 695
Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas

Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?

Post by Leontiskos »

RJG wrote: August 9th, 2021, 1:26 pm
Leontiskos wrote: August 9th, 2021, 12:56 pmYour faux-logic was already definitively disproved in this post.
Nonsense. My point, again, is that you either have evidence or you don't. Period. You can't rationally (logically) claim "non-evidence is evidence" or "evidence is non-evidence" without violating simple logic. Otherwise you are just playing games (fast-talking; spin-making).
No one is claiming that "absence of evidence" means absence of all possible evidence. They are obviously talking about absence of a particular kind of evidence or a particular piece of evidence.

RJG wrote: August 9th, 2021, 1:26 pm
Leontiskos wrote: August 9th, 2021, 12:56 pm You're just throwing symbols at the wall and hoping they stick ("[~X=X]"). You can't substitute anyone's claims into these symbols because the substitution immediately proves that your formalization is a misrepresentation or a strawman.

1.If there is a cat living in the house, then the allergic person will sneeze.
2.The allergic person is not sneezing.
3.Therefore, there is no cat living in the house. {modus tollens}

Obviously (2) is an absence.
Not so. The "not-sneezing" is evidence (...not the "absence" of evidence!). It is the evidence-of-the-absence-of-the-cat. So, now tell me, where/what is the "absence-of-evidence"?

Leontiskos wrote: August 9th, 2021, 12:56 pmIf we consider 'sneezing' to be a piece of possible evidence (as we do in 1),...
No, it is NOT the "sneezing" that we consider as "evidence" -of-absence, it is the "not-sneezing" that we consider as "evidence" -of-absence. If you want to consider the "sneezing" as evidence, then this is just more "evidence".
Read my last post more carefully. I already answered these points. To quote myself:
Leontiskos wrote: August 9th, 2021, 12:56 pm
  1. If there is a cat living in the house, then the allergic person will sneeze.
  2. The allergic person is not sneezing.
  3. Therefore, there is no cat living in the house. {modus tollens}
Obviously (2) is an absence. Is it the absence of evidence or evidence in itself? Well, both, because the word "evidence" is quite flexible. If we consider 'sneezing' to be a piece of possible evidence (as we do in 1), then (2) indicates the absence of that evidence. If we consider 'not sneezing' to be a piece of positive evidence, then (2) indicates the presence of that evidence.
RJG wrote: August 9th, 2021, 1:26 pmIn other words:
"Sneezing" (1) is the evidence of the presence of the cat.
"Not-sneezing" (2) is the evidence of the absence of the cat.

So again, where/what is the "absence-of-evidence"?
If sneezing counts as evidence then non-sneezing counts as absence of evidence. [(s=e) -> (~s=~e)]

Leontiskos wrote: August 9th, 2021, 12:56 pm
  1. If there is a cat living in the house, then the allergic person will sneeze.
  2. The allergic person is not sneezing.
  3. Therefore, there is no cat living in the house. {modus tollens}
RJG wrote: August 9th, 2021, 1:26 pm
Leontiskos wrote:...then (2) indicates the absence of that evidence.
Not so. The "not-sneezing" (in statement 2) is the "evidence" (of the absence of the cat), not the "absence-of evidence". So again, please tell me where/what is the "absence-of-evidence"?

Again, either you have evidence or you don't. It's as simple as that. -- You can't rationally (logically) claim "non-evidence is evidence" or "evidence is non-evidence" without violating simple logic.
Again, what is being said is that absence of X is evidence for Y. It is not being said that absence of X is evidence for X, or that non-evidence is equivalent to evidence. You are misrepresenting the OP's position.
Wrestling with Philosophy since 456 BC

Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Leontiskos wrote: August 9th, 2021, 12:56 pm To insist on one possible semantic usage to the exclusion of all others, as @RJG and @Terrapin Station have been doing, is silly.
Not at all something I've done. And you ignored the clarification question I asked you in my last response to you.
User avatar
Leontiskos
Posts: 695
Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas

Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?

Post by Leontiskos »

Terrapin Station wrote: August 9th, 2021, 5:21 pm
Leontiskos wrote: August 9th, 2021, 12:56 pm To insist on one possible semantic usage to the exclusion of all others, as @RJG and @Terrapin Station have been doing, is silly.
Not at all something I've done.
You did it here, where you claimed that only someone with Asperger's would oppose your semantic usage:
Terrapin Station wrote: August 5th, 2021, 8:27 amYou're responding like an Aspie here.

Again, "Absence of evidence" is another way of saying, "There is evidence that not-P." It's not literally saying that we have no evidence of something (not evidence either way basically).
Terrapin Station wrote: August 7th, 2021, 6:14 am
Leontiskos wrote: August 6th, 2021, 3:49 pm No, it really is a difference in reality, and therefore can bear on what is in evidence. Dogs really do have tails and humans really don't.
I don't want to discuss more than one point at a time. So just the above first. Are you claiming real kinds/types/universals here?
This strikes me as a red herring and an unnecessary tangent. Evidence is based on expectations, and some expectations are reflective of reality. Dogs have tails, humans don't, and cat dander makes allergic people sneeze. These all represent reliable expectations that can be used to make inferences about reality.
Wrestling with Philosophy since 456 BC

Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
-0+
Posts: 240
Joined: June 19th, 2014, 5:30 pm

Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?

Post by -0+ »

Leontiskos wrote: August 6th, 2021, 1:29 am Yes, but there is also non-physical, non-perceptual evidence.

Consider a mediocre detective who examines a scene to determine whether a crime was committed. He concludes that no crime was committed, for he is familiar with the sort of evidence that is characteristic of a crime and he finds that it is not present. That's fine; his belief has some measure of credibility despite the fact that it does not provide a guarantee. But now suppose that Sherlock Holmes--an expert detective--comes onto the same scene. He comes to the same conclusion as the mediocre detective, but my contention is that Sherlock's credibility is much greater than the mediocre detective's, and not because of any physical or (arguably) perceptual difference.

The relevant difference is that Sherlock's deductive capabilities are much greater than the mediocre detective's, and thus the absence of crime-detection in Sherlock's mind constitutes a more reliable indication of the lack of crime than the absence of crime-detection in the mediocre detective's mind. Your earlier formulation is better since it also captures cases like these, which are not perceptual or based on physical objects.
What is the non-perceptual evidence in this example?

If the scene is "in the fridge" and the potential crime under investigation is "spilt milk" then two detectives can look inside the same fridge and obtain different perceptual evidence of the contents of the fridge depending on where they look, how thoroughly they look, what tools they use to detect milk, etc.

Once they have obtained their evidence, they may use different processes to evaluate all their evidence with respect to the proposition in question. These processes may use additional data that may or may not qualify as perceptual evidence. While an evaluation of evidence is used to say how much the evidence supports the proposition, is the evaluation process (and any non-perceptual data this uses) considered to be part of the evidence or additional to the evidence?

If John doesn't look inside the fridge himself but receives reports from the detectives about their evidence and conclusions, this is where credibility may come into play. The contents of a report are part of his perceptual evidence but they refer to evidence that John did not experience himself. This second hand evidence is more questionable than first-hand evidence but it is still some kind of evidence. How much weight John gives to each report may depend on how credible he thinks each detective is. His assessment of credibility may be based on accumulated perceptual evidence from having worked with each detective for some time, or on a chain of hearsay that reaches someone who John has perceptual evidence of regarding their reliability, or his assessment of credibility could be baseless?

So long as the same qualification of "evidence" is applied to both sides of the "is" equation, does what qualifies as "evidence" make much/any difference to the topic question?
-0+
Posts: 240
Joined: June 19th, 2014, 5:30 pm

Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?

Post by -0+ »

Leontiskos wrote: August 6th, 2021, 1:29 am There is a lot of ambiguity in this thread surrounding the term "absence of evidence." That needs to be worked through,
Yes, the topic question is ambiguous. It is a generalisation of earlier statements and questions including "evidence of p" or "evidence for p" that may have been a little less ambiguous, but this is a gentle "is A ever B" type question (OP never states "A is B") so this is fair enough, inviting exploration of the broader topic that may eventually require some ambiguities to be resolved.

It could have been more ambiguous. For instance, it may be more common for people to say something like, "There is no evidence of P". In this context 'no', may be most commonly interpreted as 'zero' (not-any, none), but 'no' can also mean 'not' or 'negative' (especially in other contexts). These meanings are logically different. Likewise, the 'a-' prefix in words like 'atheism' can mean 'not', 'without', or 'opposite to'. Using logically different meanings like these interchangeably can corrupt logic and communication. It is easy to imagine how an idea like "The evidence does not (positively) support P" (support may be negative or zero) can mutate into "There is no evidence of P" .

'Absence' may be used to make it clearer that this means 'zero' rather than some other meaning of 'no'.

"Evidence of P" may be more ambiguous than "Absence of P".

"Evidence for P" suggests "positive support For P".

"Evidence of P" can be interpreted as:
(1) "Evidence that is relevant to P" (could be For or Against P)
(2) "perceptual experience of P".

This may depend on the datatype of P.

If P is a proposition: P is something that can be supported by evidence (positively or negatively). P is abstract so it can't be perceptually experienced (although it refers to something than can be). The 2nd interpretation doesn't fit.

If P is a perceptible thing: P is something that can be perceptually experienced. P is not supported by evidence so much as it is perceived by evidence. The 2nd interpretation fits better than the 1st interpretation.

For example: milk is a perceptible thing that can be perceptually experienced; "milk" is not explicitly a proposition; "milk is present" is a proposition that refers to perceptible milk; this proposition can be supported positively or negatively by any evidence that is relevant (including, but not limited to, perceptual experience of milk).

"Evidence of milk" suggests P is a perceptible thing and the 2nd interpretation is more appropriate while "Evidence of 'milk is present'" explicitly suggests P is a proposition and the 1st interpretation is more appropriate.

However, if 'milk' is intended to be short for proposition "milk is present", then "Evidence of milk" becomes ambiguous. How to interpret this?

This may depend on what the complement of "milk" is. The complement of "milk is present" is "milk is not present" (or "milk is absent"). The complement of perceptible "milk" is every perceptible thing that doesn't qualify as "milk" .

If it is claimed that the complement of "milk" is "milk is absent" then "milk" is short for proposition "milk is present" and the 1st interpretation (or something similar) is needed to be consistent with this.

It may not matter how "Evidence of P" is interpreted so long as this interpretation is applied consistently on both sides of the "is" equation?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Leontiskos wrote: August 9th, 2021, 6:07 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: August 9th, 2021, 5:21 pm
Leontiskos wrote: August 9th, 2021, 12:56 pm To insist on one possible semantic usage to the exclusion of all others, as @RJG and @Terrapin Station have been doing, is silly.
Not at all something I've done.
You did it here, where you claimed that only someone with Asperger's would oppose your semantic usage:
Terrapin Station wrote: August 5th, 2021, 8:27 amYou're responding like an Aspie here.

Again, "Absence of evidence" is another way of saying, "There is evidence that not-P." It's not literally saying that we have no evidence of something (not evidence either way basically).
That's not at all "insisting on one possible semantic usage." It's about understanding normal (that is, conventional) usage.
Terrapin Station wrote: August 7th, 2021, 6:14 am
Leontiskos wrote: August 6th, 2021, 3:49 pm No, it really is a difference in reality, and therefore can bear on what is in evidence. Dogs really do have tails and humans really don't.
I don't want to discuss more than one point at a time. So just the above first. Are you claiming real kinds/types/universals here?
This strikes me as a red herring and an unnecessary tangent. Evidence is based on expectations,
What would be an argument for "evidence is based on expectations"?
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