Is Absence of Evidence Evidence of Absence?

[Secret Chief]

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.

Ok, "hypothetical" and "imply", as per: Dark matter - Wikipedia

My point was more in the principle, rather than necessarily specifically dark matter. If there is "something" undetected/undetectable (currently?) then I clearly cannot refer to it by name.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

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.

Putting it another way if a person gets charged with a crime but gets released because of a lack of conclusive evidence, is that objective evidence of that person being unguilty? Perhaps the person could have been guilty, but the evidence was too weak to get a conviction.

 

[blü 2]

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.

If there's no examinable evidence to support your hypothesis in science, then your hypothesis remains hypothetical. The hypothesis will be somewhere on the scale between Very Promising and Don't be Silly, but just where will spend on who its friends and its enemies are.

With religious hypotheses, lack of examinable evidence of the supernatural is taken for granted and rarely mentioned as a difficulty per se in shop. Who is friend and who is foe regarding the hypothesis is generally much less important than the number of followers ─ and in some circumstances, how much they earn/

Or so it looks to me.

 

[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.

The lack of evidence is not [objective] evidence of absence, and positive arguments should not be based on a lack of evidence.

Pretty much all Theories and hypotheses are based on being falsified based on positive objective evidence, and not the lack of evidence on the contrary.

The problem is more of an issue in the Theology of Religions and the scripture that supports their beliefs.

An example of a real historical problem involving the Bible is when was the Pentateuch compiled and written. The positive evidence based on known texts, linguistics, early known history of the Hebrews, and archaeological evidence, is that it was compiled and edited between 700 and 200 BCE.

The main challenge is that there could be evidence that has not been found yet, and the appeal to scripture citing Moses as the author. The challenge is I must come up with positive evidence that it was not written earlier.
I believe the following is relevant:

The Burden of Proof

SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF

The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

 

[Eli G]

What are you considering "our environment?" That which what one can observe with the five senses or something else?

Very good question to analyze.

It is known that humans can only perceive through our senses an infinitesimal part of the reality that surrounds us. So how objective is "seeing is believing"?

 

[Audie]

The lack of evidence is not [objective] evidence of absence, and positive arguments should not be based on a lack of evidence.

Pretty much all Theories and hypotheses are based on being falsified based on positive objective evidence, and not the lack of evidence on the contrary.

The problem is more of an issue in the Theology of Religions and the scripture that supports their beliefs.

An example of a real historical problem involving the Bible is when was the Pentateuch compiled and written. The positive evidence based on known texts, linguistics, early known history of the Hebrews, and archaeological evidence, is that it was compiled and edited between 700 and 200 BCE.

The main challenge is that there could be evidence that has not been found yet, and the appeal to scripture citing Moses as the author. The challenge is I must come up with positive evidence that it was not written earlier.
I believe the following is relevant:

The Burden of Proof

SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF

The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

I'm satisfied that lack of sightings
is proof positive that mammoths no
longer roam England.
Or Manhattan.

 

[The Hammer]

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.

No I don't.

There are always things and questions we don't know or can't answer directly. For which I tend to use this line.

 

[sun rise]

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.

The thread title is a logical fallacy.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The thread title is a logical fallacy.

How so?

 

[McBell]

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

Yes

 

[sun rise]

How so?

Actually you asked a question not made a statement. One answer would be a logical fallacy.

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false.[1] It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false.[2] In debates, appealing to ignorance is sometimes an attempt to shift the burden of proof. The term was likely coined by philosopher John Locke in the late 17th century.[3][4]

And more "argument from self-knowing"

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Kfox]

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 believe in most cases it is, but in some cases it may not be. I believe in science, they don't make that assumption but in many of our everyday interactions we have to.

 

[al_berk]

Depends on probabilities: imagine opening your wallet and finding no money - is the lack of evidence for money the evidence for the lack of money? But imagine sitting on a train and finding no kids around you, is that evidence for the lack of kids in the city?

Scientists frequently use that phrase to refer to the theoretical impossibility of disproving the inexistence of something, but it doesn't mean that we should treat [close to] zero possibilities as possible.

 

[shunyadragon]

Depends on probabilities: imagine opening your wallet and finding no money - is the lack of evidence for money the evidence for the lack of money? But imagine sitting on a train and finding no kids around you, is that evidence for the lack of kids in the city?

I do not care for this example. it is too extreme.

Scientists frequently use that phrase to refer to the theoretical impossibility of disproving the inexistence of something, but it doesn't mean that we should treat [close to] zero possibilities as possible.

I do not believe this expression very often applies to science in understanding our physical existence. Science deals with what can be objectively observable and does not deal with the conjecture of the question: Is Absence of Evidence Evidence of Absence? which is often used in apologetics to justify the scripture or a belief when evidence is simply lacking, and the appeal is 'arguing from ignorance.'

 

[vulcanlogician]

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.

No. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

I'm sure someone has already brought up Russell's teapot by now. If not, google "Russell's teapot" for the scoop.

 

[shunyadragon]

No. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

I'm sure someone has already brought up Russell's teapot by now. If not, google "Russell's teapot" for the scoop.

Not necessarily? I gave a simplified response that is the conclusion of "Russell's Teapot."

There may be a few situations that,' Absence of Evidence Evidence of Absence' may logically apply, but I doubt it.

Though it was mentioned that at the personal level when there is a lack of knowledge, and in all humility one should not assume, because one has no knowledge of something the ' Absence of Evidence Evidence of Absence.' may describe the situation.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

I believe that they are indirectly detectable and in some way measurable, but as to what 'dark matter and energy' are or caused by remains unknown.

 

[Kfox]

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.

For some things it is, other things it is not.

 

[F1fan]

Depends on probabilities: imagine opening your wallet and finding no money - is the lack of evidence for money the evidence for the lack of money?

Yes. You look in your wallet and it is empty, that means there is no money in it. But of course we know money exists because we all have seen and used it. You just happen to be broke. Bad luck.

But imagine sitting on a train and finding no kids around you, is that evidence for the lack of kids in the city?

If you are on the train to Chernobyl, probably, as it's not safe for kids. But we know kids exist in reality, too, unlike gods.

Scientists frequently use that phrase to refer to the theoretical impossibility of disproving the inexistence of something, but it doesn't mean that we should treat [close to] zero possibilities as possible.

It's funny theists can never demonstrate any of their gods exist. Why would any rational thinker assume they do?

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok, "hypothetical" and "imply", as per: Dark matter - Wikipedia

My point was more in the principle, rather than necessarily specifically dark matter. If there is "something" undetected/undetectable (currently?) then I clearly cannot refer to it by name.

I would not describe 'Dark Matter' as totally undetected. The evidence is indirect.

For other uses, see Dark Matter (disambiguation). Not to be confused with antimatter, dark energy, dark fluid, or dark flow.
Unsolved problem in physics:
What is dark matter? How was it generated?

Dark matter - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In astronomy, dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter that appears not to interact with light or the electromagnetic field. Dark matter is implied by gravitational effects which cannot be explained by general relativity unless more matter is present than can be seen. Such effects occur in the context of formation and evolution of galaxies,[1] gravitational lensing,[2] the observable universe's current structure, mass position in galactic collisions,[3] the motion of galaxies within galaxy clusters, and cosmic microwave background anisotropies.