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

Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?

Post by Steve3007 »

Leontiskos wrote:What you are failing to see is that absence of evidence for one thing can be presence of evidence for a different thing.
Yes, I think that is the key point. Evidence is always evidence of something. If it wasn't, and if it made sense just to talk about evidence, period ("I have evidence!", "Of what?", "Just evidence"), then RJG et al would be right to equate the sentence "absence of evidence is evidence" with "~X = X" by letting X = evidence. He/they would then be right to say that it is self-contradictory. But we can't sensibly do that in English because evidence isn't a standalone thing in itself. It's of something. People who take the title of the topic too literally, without accounting for this kind of standard usage, don't account for that. They simply see a sentence which appears to say "absence of something is that thing" and look no further than that.

As you've said, Consul, in saying this:

"Absence of evidence for milk is evidence for absence of milk."

is not contradicting himself because in that sentence the first evidence is "for milk" and the second is "for absence of milk". So they're evidence for/of two different things. Hence, as you've said, the simple X substitution doesn't work.
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 6th, 2021, 12:04 pm
Leontiskos wrote: August 6th, 2021, 11:33 amWhat you are failing to see is that absence of evidence for one thing can be presence of evidence for a different thing.
Yes, I think that is the key point. Evidence is always evidence of something...
Thanks, that was a wonderfully clear explanation.

I think there are a number of reasons that make this topic so tricky, many of which are semantic:
  1. Evidence and proof are different things.
  2. Evidence can be taken in the sense of including or excluding negative evidence (privative evidence).
  3. Absence can be taken in the sense of simple absence or privation.
  4. Privation is always based on a particular subject's expectations.
...where a privation is conceived as an absence that wouldn't be absent unless such-and-such were the case. It is an absence that warrants an inference.

All of these ambiguities result in a large number of different permutations and opinions.
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 6th, 2021, 11:13 am Someone might say, “I looked for God all throughout San Francisco, and I couldn’t find him, therefore I am justified in a minor belief in his non-existence.” Someone might reply, “But God is immaterial, and so your visual search has neither the capacity to confirm or disconfirm his existence. It is null evidence.”
Your post has a ton that would need to be sorted through. In my opinion a lot of it is not very clearly organized/communicated.

In any event, there is no scenario in which an "absence of evidence" isn't evidence of absence, including the God situation. First off, if we can't actually obtain evidence of some sort for something like God, including evidence of supposed "immaterial" existents, then there's zero justification for believing in those things in the first place. If we're to buy that there can be immaterial entities, then (a) some sense has to be made of that notion, and (b) we'd need something that would count as evidence of immaterial entities. The absence of such evidence is evidence (good reasons to believe) that there are no such things.
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 6th, 2021, 1:06 pm [*]Evidence can be taken in the sense of including or excluding negative evidence (privative evidence).
[*]Absence can be taken in the sense of simple absence or privation.
Can you present some examples for the supposed distinction you're making there?
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 6th, 2021, 2:22 pm
Leontiskos wrote: August 6th, 2021, 1:06 pm 2. Evidence can be taken in the sense of including or excluding negative evidence (privative evidence).
3. Absence can be taken in the sense of simple absence or privation.
Can you present some examples for the supposed distinction you're making there?
2. Evidence can be taken in the sense of including or excluding negative evidence (privative evidence).

In the OP there is an italicized quote from SEP that gets at this distinction. If you go to the article the next paragraph concludes, "...From the perspective of much ordinary thought and talk about evidence, much philosophical theorizing about evidence would seem to embody a particularly grotesque category mistake" (Evidence - SEP). The basic idea is that the concept of evidence can be more flexible than is first assumed, including non-physical deductive and propositional evidence. For example, my point about Sherlock Holmes here introduces a form of (negative) evidence that was not admitted in the OP.


3. Absence can be taken in the sense of simple absence or privation.

I elaborated on privation in that post:
Leontiskos wrote: August 6th, 2021, 1:06 pm...where a privation is conceived as an absence that wouldn't be absent unless such-and-such were the case. It is an absence that warrants an inference.
Simple absence: This human has no tail.
Privative absence: This dog has no tail.

The tailless human warrants no inference, for there is nothing conspicuous about that absence. The tailless dog warrants an inference, for there is something conspicuous about that absence (which is more properly called a privation).

The argument over God in San Francisco is an argument over whether the absence was simple or privative. Obviously simple absence is the kind of absence that is not evidence of absence.
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 6th, 2021, 3:17 pm Simple absence: This human has no tail.
Privative absence: This dog has no tail.
I don't agree that there's actually a distinction there.

What you're saying is that there's a difference in what I'd call background assumptions--namely, the evidence in question against what one is expecting as a norm (where whether those expectations re norms are justified, etc. is a can of worms that we'd have to get into as a separate topic), but that's not actually a difference in the evidence itself or what the evidence implies about what is or isn't the case.
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 6th, 2021, 3:30 pm
Leontiskos wrote: August 6th, 2021, 3:17 pm Simple absence: This human has no tail.
Privative absence: This dog has no tail.
I don't agree that there's actually a distinction there.

What you're saying is that there's a difference in what I'd call background assumptions--namely, the evidence in question against what one is expecting as a norm (where whether those expectations re norms are justified, etc. is a can of worms that we'd have to get into as a separate topic), but that's not actually a difference in the evidence itself or what the evidence implies about what is or isn't the case.
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.

Recall this key principle for this thread:
Leontiskos wrote: August 6th, 2021, 11:33 amWhat you are failing to see is that absence of evidence for one thing can be presence of evidence for a different thing.
Evidence is itself a consequence of the relation between a cause and the effects which that cause reliably produces. When we say that X is evidence of Y we are saying that X is an effect characteristically produced by Y. We are reasoning from effect to cause.

The examples used in this thread involve a kind of immediate inference, so they aren't altogether helpful. That is, milk reliably produces a visual effect and coins reliably produce a tactile effect, and so if those effects are absent then we can infer that the causes are also absent. But sight and touch don't require any special inference.

A better example would be cats and dander. If I am at someone's house and there is no dander, then I can infer that there is no cat, because cats reliably produce dander. In that case I could infer: <I am not sneezing> -> <there is no dander> -> <there is no cat>. The absence of dander is privative with respect to cats, which is why I can make the inference.

The validity of the inference does depend on whether sneezing is a privation vis-a-vis cats or not. If someone believes that I am allergic to cats when in fact I am not, then they will falsely conclude that there must be no cats living in the house on the basis of my non-sneezing.

Whether cats produce dander (and sneezing) has everything to do with whether the absence of sneezing counts as evidence or not. Whether God is visually perceptible has everything to do with whether a survey of San Francisco will count as evidence with respect to his existence. Arguments over whether a particular absence is simple or privative are substantial arguments because the relations between effects and causes have everything to do with evidence.

-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
Sculptor1
Posts: 7088
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?

Post by Sculptor1 »

3017Metaphysician wrote: August 6th, 2021, 9:15 am Keep in mind that in Christianity, Jesus existed in a history book. Though some obvious differences, the antiquity is the same as in any historical accounting of any other person. In that respect, God exists.
The story of Jesus is not an historical account by any measure.
Even if it were is would not justify your conclusion.

I've read several contemporary account of ancient lives, and they all differ markedly from the "Gospels".
Take Suetonius' Lives of the Casears; Thucidides' Pelopponesian Wars; Xenophon's Anabasis, but especailly the man who set the whole thing going Herodotus' Histories. There are also various accounts of Alexander the Great wo was seen in his own time as a god. It is doubtful if Joshua Ben Josef was ever seen as a god in his own time, but there were pletny of them knocking around at the time.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?

Post by RJG »

Terrapin Station wrote:Absence of evidence is ALWAYS evidence of absence.
RJG wrote:Logically, this is self-contradictory. The absence of X can NEVER be X. [~X=X is logically impossible]. Therefore, the absence of evidence can NEVER be evidence (of anything).
Leontiskos wrote:I think your larger position is tenable, but this argument is mistaken. You are misinterpreting the meaning of what is being said. This is what Consul has said:
Firstly, I'm not responding to Consul, I'm responding to Terrapin. Secondly, the statement --- "the absence-of-evidence is evidence-of-absence" is an obvious logical contradiction, plain and simple. [~X = X]. (...I'm somewhat shocked that you don't grasp this simple logical truth :shock:)

Leontiskos wrote:This is what Consul has said:
"Absence of evidence for milk is evidence for absence of milk."

Phrased differently:
"Absence of evidence for milk is evidence for not-milk."
It does not matter how this is phrased, it is still a logical contradiction. It is committing an appeal-to-ignorance fallacy; the "absence-of-evidence" (of anything) is NOT evidence-of-absence (for anything, ..or for anything else, ...or for not-anything, ...or for not-anything else). No evidence is no evidence for anything. For example:

-- If you have no evidence of X, then this does NOT mean that you have evidence of not-X.
-- If you have no-evidence of milk, this does NOT mean that you have evidence of not-milk.
-- If you have no-evidence of UFO's, then this does NOT mean that you have evidence for the non-existence of UFO's.
-- If you have no-evidence of God, then this does NOT mean that you have evidence for the non-existence of God.

Leontiskos wrote:What you are failing to see is that absence of evidence for one thing can be presence of evidence for a different thing.
Not possible! You can't get evidence from non-evidence. You can't get evidence of milk or no-milk from no evidence (of anything!). You can't get evidence of UFO's or no-UFO's from no evidence (of anything!).

Terrapin Station wrote:For example, if we're wondering if our car keys are in the jacket we wore yesterday, we'd check the pockets, and if our car keys are not there, that absence of evidence is clearly evidence of absence of our car keys being in that jacket.
RJG wrote:There is NO "absence of evidence" here, there is only "evidence of absence".

Since you checked your pockets for your keys, you ONLY have the "evidence of the absence" of your keys. But if you did not check your pockets for your keys (or did nothing but wonder if your keys were there), then this would be "absence of evidence".

Either you have evidence or you don't. - If you have no evidence, then you certainly cannot have evidence! ~X=X is logically impossible!
Leontiskos wrote:...and an empty pocket is incompatible with a coin. Both of these are true. You are misrepresenting the claim.
Nonsense. I'm not misrepresenting anything. If you look in your pocket and see that it is empty then this is "evidence of absence". So now tell me where/what is the "absence-of-evidence"?

You either look in your pocket and have evidence (of a coin or of no-coin) or you don't have evidence (of anything!). You either have evidence (one way or the other) or you don't! Period. It is either X or ~X, but not both!


**************
Steve3007 wrote:"Absence of evidence for milk is evidence for absence of milk."

is not contradicting himself because in that sentence the first evidence is "for milk" and the second is "for absence of milk". So they're evidence for/of two different things. Hence, as you've said, the simple X substitution doesn't work.
Consul is still contradicting himself with this phrase even though milk and not milk are two different things.

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

Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?

Post by Steve3007 »

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.
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 »

Steve3007 wrote: August 7th, 2021, 7:40 am 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.
Perhaps people don't indulge in it because it's an uncommon speculation, of the sort that only philosophers generally address? I think perhaps normal people in RL don't do it because of a lack of interest, not because it's 'quite sensible or rational' to do so. This issue is an important one, philosophically speaking. It asks whether it is reasonable and/or justifiable to dismiss things we know little about, because we know so little about them.

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.

Is this "pathological agnosticism"? I don't think so. Quite the contrary. This is about applying our philosophical beliefs to RL, where they belong. I contend that we should carry on doing what we've always done, in philosophy forums and in RL, because it makes sense. But, I suggest that our reasons for doing so are not that these far-fetched possibilities are wrong or non-existent, but because there are other issues we see as being more interesting, and maybe useful?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
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:But, to dismiss possibilities - to conclude that they are impossible, or do not exist - is not logical or justifiable.
Did you see what I said about the way that (in my view) people frequently conflate belief with certainty? Who is concluding that anything is impossible here?
-0+
Posts: 240
Joined: June 19th, 2014, 5:30 pm

Re: Is Absence of Evidence ever Evidence of Absence?

Post by -0+ »

Terrapin Station wrote: August 5th, 2021, 8:27 am Again, "Absence of evidence" is another way of saying, "There is evidence that not-P."
Some people may use phrases like these interchangeably. Colloquially, anything can be another way of saying something else. Any two phrases can be colloquially equivalent.

The main question here is: Are these phrases logically equivalent?

If opinions differ, the next question can be: How best to demonstrate that these phrases are (not) logically equivalent?
Terrapin Station wrote: August 5th, 2021, 8:27 am It's not literally saying that we have no evidence of something (not evidence either way basically).
If "Absence of evidence" is being said to mean something other than what "Absence of evidence" literally means, then another phrase can be provided that better communicates the intended meaning. However, this may not be necessary ...

"Absence of X" can be another way of saying "X is absent". This literally means X is not present, without X, lack of X, there is zero quantity of X (in specified location), etc. It doesn't matter what X is. If X is absent then X is not present. If X is "evidence" then evidence is not present.

If X is intended to be "evidence of P" then evidence of P is not present.

As others have mentioned, absence of evidence of P doesn't imply all evidence is absent. Evidence of Q (something else) could be present. However, absence of X doesn't normally reveal anything about the presence of Y (evidence of Q). Y may or may not be present. It is possible that X is absent and Y is present but there is no "is" relationship between the two.

If P and Q are independent variables then any correlation of between absence of X and presence of Y is coincidental.

A key question here is: what about the special case where Q is ~P?

Is Absence of Evidence of P ever Presence of Evidence of ~P?

In this case, P and Q are mutually dependent. If P is True then Q is False. If P changes to False then Q must change to True.
Probability(Q) is 1 - Probability(P).

Therefore:
Any evidence for P is evidence against ~P.
Any evidence for ~P is evidence against P.
Presence of evidence of ~P reveals that evidence of P is present.
Absence of evidence of P reveals that evidence of ~P is absent (not present).
Terrapin Station wrote: August 5th, 2021, 8:30 am In other words, "There is absence of evidence that P" is another way of saying, "There is evidence that not-P." It's just placing the negation in a different place in the sentence syntactically.
Placing the negation in a different place can change the meaning.

For example: "not-believe X" is not equivalent to "believe not-X".
Steve3007 wrote: August 7th, 2021, 7:40 am 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".
This is a classic example of mistaken equivalence that illustrates how placing the negation in a different place can change the meaning.

"I believe that they don't exist" implies "I don't believe they exist".

However: "I don't believe they exist" does not imply "I believe that they don't exist" ... ("I don't believe X" implies belief of X is not positive: if not positive then belief of X could be zero or negative ... if negative (anti-belief) then belief of ~X is positive (eg, "I believe that they don't exist"); if zero (absent-belief) then belief of ~X is also zero.)

B implies A but A doesn't imply B. Therefore A and B are not equivalent.
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 »

Steve3007 wrote: August 7th, 2021, 9:01 am
Pattern-chaser wrote:But, to dismiss possibilities - to conclude that they are impossible, or do not exist - is not logical or justifiable.
Steve3007 wrote: August 7th, 2021, 9:01 am Did you see what I said about the way that (in my view) people frequently conflate belief with certainty?
Yes, and I agree with that.


Steve3007 wrote: August 7th, 2021, 9:01 am Who is concluding that anything is impossible here?
One example: those who contend that Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence. [Although in this case it's non-existence that they suggest, not impossibility. Same idea, though.] We have considered very-highly-constrained counter-examples already in this thread. They are superficial and trivial, and may even be offered as a distraction (to this discussion/topic).

This topic seeks to justify induction, to place it on a par with deduction. This can't be done, because it isn't correct. It's that simple.
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