Is Absence of Evidence Evidence of Absence?

[Stevicus]

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?

This would make sense. Ultimately, we only know what we see with our own eyes. If someone came to me and said "I just saw a one-eyed, one-horned, flying purple people eater." But I didn't see that, and there was no evidence of such anywhere that I could see. But he says "I SAW it!" Who am I to tell someone that they didn't see something? The absence of evidence doesn't prove that it didn't happen, and for all I know, they could have seen someone in a costume which looked like that.

 

[ChristineM]

Mhm.

Now is evidence of absence of an explosion evidence of absence of an explosion?

In your hypothetical world or in reality?

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

It is evidence, but not proof.

 

[SalixIncendium]

In your hypothetical world or in reality?

Presenting a hypothetical situation does not equate to representing a "hypothetical world."

So in this reality in my hypothetical situation.

 

[F1fan]

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.

Well if the police show up at your home at 7am and arrest you for murdering a person you had an argument for the previous day, but they can't find the murder weapon, nor place you in the area of the crime, then yes, the absense of evidence against you is something you would cheer. That doesn't mean you didn't kill the person, but the lack of evidence means we can't know. If you are innocent, wouldn't you feel good that the police didn't manufactere evidence and lied about it?

As far as making conclusions, we follow evidence. The lack of evidence does NOT mean we assume a conclusion anyway, it means we don't know and shouldn't form an opinion. It is OK to not have opinions about things.

 

[F1fan]

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?

Would you not have a clue something is wrong if you see hurt people and emergency vehicles, even though one side of the building looks intact? Your question illustrates how some might want something to be true and they reject evidence and facts that go against what they want. We see ceationists do this with evolution. We see climate deniers do this with data, one person claiming that scientists fake their data. In science tests have to account for all facts and all data, and the average person would be helped by following the same standard. Some folks will ignore reality due to the trauma they experience, but they can also ignore reality because they prefer an illusion they control. The human mind can learn how to reason, but also how to deceive itself.

 

[F1fan]

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?

Sure, but these were plausible with the rest of science. The same with microorganisms before the microscope was invented.

If someone introduces a God into an argument and claims it can do whatever it wants, how can any of us predict anything in nature? We can't. But we also don't see any signs of phenomenon happening without a direct natural cause, so the introduction of a "God that can do anything" is rejected as plausible. It's more likely invented than something a mere mortal was able to fingure out without evidence.

 

[ChristineM]

Presenting a hypothetical situation does not equate to representing a "hypothetical world."

So in this reality in my hypothetical situation.

Yes, i realise that

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

Actually, this is circular reasoning and does not reflect the role of objectively verifiable evidence in Methodological Naturalism. Methodological Naturalism does not consider the lack of objective evidence to be objective evidence of absence. Such a consideration just translates as a hypothesis that is not falsifiable if there is a lack of evidence nothing less and nothing more.

For example: The lack of evidence for the existence of God or confirming supernatural events is not evidence that they do not exist. It is simply the conclusion that the hypothesis for their existence is not falsifiable, and science is neutral to whether they exist or not.

 

[Heyo]

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.

It depends on whether evidence is expected.

Example life outside earth: We don't have evidence of any life outside of earth.
Is that evidence that there is none? No, as we don't expect to have evidence. We don't have the tools to detect life or signs of live. We haven't looked thoroughly.

Example Cryptid life on Earth (Bigfoot): We don't have (scientific) evidence of any uncatalogued hominins anywhere on Earth.
Is that evidence that there is none? Yes, as we would expect to have found traces, shed hair, bones, excrements, anything. We have looked thoroughly.
(Did we look everywhere? Could they be where we haven't looked? Well, no and yes but given our sample size we have look at enough places to be quite confident that we would have found something.)

 

[Nakosis]

The effect on us may be detectable but that does not automatically mean that what is causing the effect is detectable.

Whether the cause is detectable is not relevant. Only that something is affecting us. If something is affecting then we know something exist which is causing it.

We may not even be aware that some effect is actually caused by something that is undetectable.

So if you are not aware of anything affecting you and you can't detect anything there to exist then factually, it doesn't exist. Not to you.

 

[Secret Chief]

we know something exist which is causing it.

We may be unaware that something is affecting us.

So if you are not aware of anything affecting you and you can't detect anything there to exist then factually, it doesn't exist. Not to you.

I would say that in this case that just because I am not aware of its existence (and may be currently undetectable), that does not necessarily mean that it does not exist.

 

[Nakosis]

We may be unaware that something is affecting us.


I would say that in this case that just because I am not aware of its existence (and may be currently undetectable), that does not necessarily mean that it does not exist.

The point is that it doesn't exist to you.
Not until you can detect it or its affect on you.

 

[Secret Chief]

The point is that it doesn't exist to you.
Not until you can detect it or its affect on you.

I agree. (Or else other/s can then detect it and/or its influence/effects).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

It certainly can be. Depends on context.

I'll give 2 examples of both ways to imo illustrate the difference nicely.

Let's take the example of evolution and paleontology.
Fossilization is known to be a very rare process. We aren't guaranteed to have ANY fossils at all.
So a transitional fossil like Tiktaalik for example, is evidence for the transition of sea to land life in animals.
Now let's say we never found this fossil. That would not be evidence of absence of the transition of sea to land. Because we aren't guaranteed these fossils. There's nothing that makes it such that these fossils MUST exist and be found.

Now let's contrast that with say a biblical global flood that kills 99.99% of all members of all species, bar a handful of breeding pairs of each species.
This idea makes predictions: there should be a geological layer showing evidence of this flood AND there should be an extremely severe genetic bottleneck in the genomes of ALL these species, dating the same period of that flood layer in the geological column.
As it turns out, neither exists... not the bottlenecks and not the layer.

THAT absence of evidence, most definately is evidence of absence of this flooding event as described. It did not occur.
The evidence of the universal genetic bottlenecks MUST exist. But it does not.




So in summary: if according the idea / hypothesis in question, the evidence MUST exist, then absence thereof is evidence of absence.
If certain evidence could exist, but doesn't HAVE TO exist, then absence thereof is not evidence of absence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

I don't think so.


As I said in my previous post, before we can even talk about "evidence", there must be some type of falsifiable idea that we are looking to support or disprove.
That idea, if testable at least, will be making certain predictions about what we could or should or should not see in the world in terms of evidence.


Those pieces of evidence that MUST exist if the idea / hypothesis is true.... if they don't exist, then the absence of that evidence is evidence of absence.

If I tell you that I used my credit card to pay for the restaurant last night, and subsequently no records of that payment is found in ANY of the logs (not on my end, not on the end of the restaurant,... just no trace of it at all) and the money is not withdrawn from my account, then the LACK of that evidence means the payment never took place. It didn't happen. The absence of the evidence / the payment logs is evidence of absence of the payment.

Perhaps the payment terminal failed, perhaps there was some other kind of error, perhaps I'm simply lying about paying. Whatever.
The payment did not occur.


Again: it depends on context.
Does the evidence MUST exist for the idea / hypothesis to be true?
Or could the idea / hypothesis also be true if the specific evidence in question does not exist?

Not finding tiktaalik would not be evidence against evolution.
Not finding a universal genetic bottleneck in all species dating to same period however IS evidence AGAINST the biblical flood story.

 

[HonestJoe]

Whether it comes to science or religion...

A side point but one that may be relevant depending on your underlying point; The subject of the evidence doesn't make the slightest difference to the principles of how the evidence should be addressed. Whether you're defining something as spiritual or temporal, it should be studied in the same way.

do you consider a lack of objective evidence to be objective evidence of absence?

It depends. If there is simply no evidence either way, because we're unable to access the relevant information or haven't (yet) sought it out, that is not evidence of absence (though nor is is evidence of presence). If evidence has been sought to support a particular hypothesis but no definitive evidence has been found for or against it, that could well be evidence (not proof) that the hypothesis is false, especially if there are alternative hypotheses that also similarly (or more) plausible.

This phrase tends to come up when someone asserts a fact without have any definitive evidence to support it (and often declaring that such evidence is not possible). That kind of assertion will be reasonable challenged and this phrase doesn't really help either way. It means there is no reason to outright dismiss the hypothesis but nor is there any reason to support it.

Absence of evidence just means you should try to find some evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

Is that necessarily true? Could we not be being affected by something that is (currently?) undetectable? (eg 85% of the matter in the universe).

I was thinking something similar. Not about the 85% of matter but things undetermined by scientists to have happened may certainly be affecting us.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

I keep it straightforward.

If it's not there, it's not there.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is that necessarily true? Could we not be being affected by something that is (currently?) undetectable? (eg 85% of the matter in the universe).

Dark energy / dark matter, whatever they are, are not undetectable.
They have manifestation in the ever-expanding acceleration of the universe and in gravitational pull.