Whether it comes to science or religion, do you consider a lack of objective evidence to be objective evidence of absence?
Please explain your reasoning.
Please explain your reasoning.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Absence of Evidence Evidence of Absence?
- Thread starter SalixIncendium
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It can be. That does not mean that it always is.
For example: You are driving into town and your best friend calls you and tells you that a large bomb just took out half of city hall. Since you are an amateur heart surgeon and EMT you rush to city hall and see no evidence of an explosion. Did an explosion take out half of city hall? I would say No. Explosions tend to leave evidence behind. The lack of evidence of an explosion tells us that one did not happen.
For example: You are driving into town and your best friend calls you and tells you that a large bomb just took out half of city hall. Since you are an amateur heart surgeon and EMT you rush to city hall and see no evidence of an explosion. Did an explosion take out half of city hall? I would say No. Explosions tend to leave evidence behind. The lack of evidence of an explosion tells us that one did not happen.
Interesting that you are only leaving the building half-exploded in your analogy. What if I enter the building and am only seeing the half that didn't explode?
What I'm getting at is this: Doesn't perspective play a large role in whether or not something is objectively evident?
Sure, at least in our environs.
If something is not detectable in our environment then it is reasonable to accept it does not exist within it.
Even if it did exist, since it is undetectable, it can't affect us so we might as well go forth in life accepting it's (whatever is being conjectured here) non-existence.
What are you considering "our environment?" That which what one can observe with the five senses or something else?
Secret Chief
Degrow!
Is that necessarily true? Could we not be being affected by something that is (currently?) undetectable? (eg 85% of the matter in the universe).
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Even if it was half exploded and it was the side away from you such events have evidence associated with them. I did say half on purpose. There would be emergency vehicles constantly entering and leaving the scene from all directions and the police would have had the entire building taped off to preserve evidence. Not to mention smoke, dust and debris and traffic tie ups.
Anything we can detect with our senses or affects something we can detect with our senses.
Somethings, like radio waves, we can't directly detect but we can detect their affect on other objects.
Depends. We don't know everything but within what is known, yes.
The point being if it is not affecting us, what does its existence matter to us?
It is the equivalent of being absence.
Secret Chief
Degrow!
The point is something may be affecting us that is undetectable (and likewise in what way it affects us).
Okay, so yes, in the real world there would be such evidence, but let's create a hypothetical where it is possible to enter the building without seeing this evidence. Large building...visibility and entry constraints where one can enter the unexploded side of the building without seeing emergency vehicles, smoke, dust, debris, etc...a perspective where evidence of the explosion cannot be seen. So no observable evidence of an explosion. So from that perspective there would be an absence of evidence. Is this evidence of absence of the explosion?
Should we assume that which we do not know is absent?
If it is affecting us then it is detectable.
It is only undetectable as long as there is no affect.
This is what (who) we used to call an "ander"
They would present their specifications. When the deal is done they would "oh and er!, Can i have this... And er! Can i have that... And eh!..."
We were unable to detect neutrinos before 1956, and were entirely unaware of their existence until 1930, so until then, there was an absence of evidence. They don't really interact with anything, so they have no effect on objects. Doesn't this poke a hole or two in your position?
Secret Chief
Degrow!
The effect on us may be detectable but that does not automatically mean that what is causing the effect is detectable.
We may not even be aware that some effect is actually caused by something that is undetectable.
Again, depends. Mitigating circumstances can lean a believe one way or another.
Example, Dark energy. Even though it cannot (yet) be detected it is assumed to be their by its effect.
Mhm.
Now is evidence of absence of an explosion evidence of absence of an explosion?
Whether it comes to science or religion, do you consider a lack of objective evidence to be objective evidence of absence?
No, because there is no such thing as objective evidence. Or more accurately, any hypothetically objective evidence is always processed subjectively by humans, therefore it becomes subjective evidence the moment a human experiences it in any way. At best, humans can achieve pseudo-objectivity based on rules they make up for themselves from their subjective experiences of life and living. In that capacity, what made up rules one wants to apply depends on what one is wanting to achieve.
The sciences have very specific standards for these sorts of things, and when I was working as a scientist, I adhered to them as is proper with following that methodology because "them's the rules" so to speak. And we use absence as evidence constantly in the sciences. If you're doing a basic botanical inventory of a woodland, and you don't find a particular species in your survey, that's evidence for the absence of that species in your study area. The limitations of this statement are understood based on the methods of your survey - no woodland inventory scours every square inch of a forest, so you design a survey method to capture as representative of a sample as you can. And of course, your findings apply only within the study area and should not be extrapolated beyond it (or that should be done only with caution and good reason). The sciences love all these nuances and conditionals because researchers understand the limitations and scope of their research - that's something routinely lost in translation when scientific research is presented in popular culture.
When it comes to religion? While religion is based on life experiences of the world around us as much as anything is, it is under no constraints to limit itself to pseudo-objectivity. Religion is very much about navigating our subjective lived experiences and the relationships we have with other-than-human (and human) actors we share the world with. Fixating on pseudo-objectivity actually gets in the way of this process more often than not. Pseudo-objective evidence isn't even a thing for the personal experiences that root our religious practices and our lives. Does the lack of this for the vast majority of our life and living invalidate our very existences? Depends on what one is wanting to achieve. That line of thinking would certainly be suitable for those into negation of self and ego identity, or for those into existential pointlessness and meaninglessness.
No, because there is no such thing as objective evidence. Or more accurately, any hypothetically objective evidence is always processed subjectively by humans, therefore it becomes subjective evidence the moment a human experiences it in any way. At best, humans can achieve pseudo-objectivity based on rules they make up for themselves from their subjective experiences of life and living. In that capacity, what made up rules one wants to apply depends on what one is wanting to achieve.
The sciences have very specific standards for these sorts of things, and when I was working as a scientist, I adhered to them as is proper with following that methodology because "them's the rules" so to speak. And we use absence as evidence constantly in the sciences. If you're doing a basic botanical inventory of a woodland, and you don't find a particular species in your survey, that's evidence for the absence of that species in your study area. The limitations of this statement are understood based on the methods of your survey - no woodland inventory scours every square inch of a forest, so you design a survey method to capture as representative of a sample as you can. And of course, your findings apply only within the study area and should not be extrapolated beyond it (or that should be done only with caution and good reason). The sciences love all these nuances and conditionals because researchers understand the limitations and scope of their research - that's something routinely lost in translation when scientific research is presented in popular culture.
When it comes to religion? While religion is based on life experiences of the world around us as much as anything is, it is under no constraints to limit itself to pseudo-objectivity. Religion is very much about navigating our subjective lived experiences and the relationships we have with other-than-human (and human) actors we share the world with. Fixating on pseudo-objectivity actually gets in the way of this process more often than not. Pseudo-objective evidence isn't even a thing for the personal experiences that root our religious practices and our lives. Does the lack of this for the vast majority of our life and living invalidate our very existences? Depends on what one is wanting to achieve. That line of thinking would certainly be suitable for those into negation of self and ego identity, or for those into existential pointlessness and meaninglessness.