Absence of Evidence

[Darth Wong]

Mike:
I've thought it over some more so here's what I don't like:

What classifies as "evidence" and what classifies as "abscence of evidence" is dependant on what you are looking for.

Every observation is evidence. Even the visual appearance of an object is evidence of various aspects of that object rather than the object itself (it could be an illusion, for example). If you can't see a car in your driveway, that is not absolute proof of its nonexistence; one might argue that it's invisible. See Carl Sagan's invisible fire-breathing dragon example.

<snip positive/negative charge example> Maybe I'm thinking about it wrong but something which is "absent" should be independant of what is causing it. If an observation is "absence of evidence" it should be such regardless of what happens in the black box.

(sigh) if you are looking for negatively charged particles, a positive charge is an absence of evidence. If you are looking for positively charged particles, a negative charge is an absence of evidence. The nature of evidence ALWAYS depends on what you're looking for. What do you find so difficult to understand about this?

As far as Bell's Inequality ... I looked it up a Quantum Mechanics book. If the inequality (which is a relation based on the expectation values of spin from a paired positron and electron from pion decay as found in the EPR paradox... and yes I don't understand all that) holds you know nothing. You could have hidden variables (like Einstein thought existed) or not ... if the inequality was followed ... either fit the data. If the inequaility was violated then the only possible conculsion was that there were no hidden variables. Don't know if this changes things, but the idea was if:
A is true then B would have to occur.
A is false then B would not have to occur (but could).

So the only time anything was "proved" was in the case of:
B does not occur (hence A must be false).

Nothing is ever proved. Science is about hypotheses which fit observation, not proof. This is NOT math.

The relation that A therefore B; not A, therefore not necessarily B makes sense. If B is missing, then you have no evidence for A. Again, I ask what you find so difficult to understand about this.

Again, see Carl Sagan's invisible, non-corporeal fire-breathing dragon example. Can you produce evidence to show that it does not exist? If not, then how can you conclude that it does not exist? Or dare you reverse your position and interpret the lack of evidence for its existence as sufficient reason to conclude that it does not exist?

[LordShaithis]

My take: If you're looking for a positive charge as evidence of X, but you find a negative one instead...

It's not so much that the negative charge is evidence for the absence of X, as it is that the lack of the positive charge you were looking for constitutes the absence of evidence for X.

In other words, you didn't find your evidence for X. Period. Whatever else you DID find is another matter entirely.

[CNS Sarajevo]

, every last Trek characters is full of shit.......

If there aren't any toilets on DS9, that would follow, wouldn't it????

[Stormbringer]

, every last Trek characters is full of shit.......

If there aren't any toilets on DS9, that would follow, wouldn't it????

Yes, it would. And it would explain a whole lot about the feddies now wouldn't it.

[ArmorPierce]

Tharkun, please stop--your just making a fool out of your self.

[CmdrWilkens]

Tharkun, please stop--your just making a fool out of your self.

But its so funny to watch...

[oberon]

Red herring. Absolute proofs are possible in math. They are not possible in reality.

It's not that math isn't grounded in reality; it's just that math is deductive, that everything is well-defined to work in a deductive-logic, but somehow, reality isn't always "well-defined" in the mathematical sense, thus assuring mathematicians some job security.

[Isolder74]

Red herring. Absolute proofs are possible in math. They are not possible in reality.

It's not that math isn't grounded in reality; it's just that math is deductive, that everything is well-defined to work in a deductive-logic, but somehow, reality isn't always "well-defined" in the mathematical sense, thus assuring mathematicians some job security.

Which is what drive physicists crazy

[ArmorPierce]

it's just getting boring

[Connor MacLeod]

Note: for all the annoying little fucks who use the line "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", guess what:

YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT. See Occam's Razor. You are engaging in blatant sophistry; there is NO SUCH THING as "evidence of absence"; that would be proof of a negative!

If there is no evidence, then there is no reason to believe something exists. So when somebody points out to you that there is no shred of evidence for one of your ideas and you retort that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", you are engaging in the "burden of proof" fallacy: demanding an impossible proof of negative from your opponent as a way of evading perfectly reasonable demands for proof of your positive.

I am sick and goddamned tired of people using that fallacious, irrational, stupid line.

I'm not entirely clear about this, admittedly. Let me use an example to possibly clarify.

I've been in a debate with people over whether or not SW ships might possibly be able to scan over distances greater than light hours, say up to light-year ranges. Its been argued that there is no evidence FOR them having light-year range sensors at all, and plenty of evidence against it (inability of Thrawn to detect Luke's X-wing less than a light year away in Heir to the Empire, inability of a nearby system to detect Dark Force dreadnaughts even being a "short" hyperspace jump away, inability of ground systems to have detected Thrawn's task forces at the edges of systems prior to microjumps - about three-thousandths of a light year out, etc.)

I've argued that there IS evidence for it (including the existence of subspace communications, which we know is multi-Light Year. As you have described in your "Star Wars Myths" page under "Empire not having superluminal sensor tech" you indicate that there IS reason to believe there is. This specific one is invariably countered with "there is no reason to assume that superluminal sensor tech and communications tech are related."

Anyhow, we have two "absence of evidence" claims:

1.) That there is no proof FOR superluminal sensor detection at light year ranges, and there are events that prove they CANNOT detect ships at greater than light hour-ranges (even more specifically, that "there is no evidence" to believe that other factors may be limiting sensor ranges in those instances, other than technological limiations, so this means it IS a tech limit.)

2.) There is no proof that superluminal communications and sensor technologies are related (the way radar and radio are.) and would have comparable ranges.

Does the "if there is no evidence, therefore there is no reason it exists" apply in this case to both points, or does the presence of potential evidence ni FAVOR of it nullify that?

And to a larger extent, is "absence of evidence" only applicable when we HAVE no reason to believe at all that something should or should exist? That is, if there IS evidence suggesting the existance (in the superluminal sensor range example, the fact they have subspace communications at light-year ranges enough to infer similar sensor ranges, or does "absence of evidence" overrule it?)

[Darth Wong]

I'm not entirely clear about this, admittedly. Let me use an example to possibly clarify.

I've been in a debate with people over whether or not SW ships might possibly be able to scan over distances greater than light hours, say up to light-year ranges. Its been argued that there is no evidence FOR them having light-year range sensors at all, and plenty of evidence against it (inability of Thrawn to detect Luke's X-wing less than a light year away in Heir to the Empire, inability of a nearby system to detect Dark Force dreadnaughts even being a "short" hyperspace jump away, inability of ground systems to have detected Thrawn's task forces at the edges of systems prior to microjumps - about three-thousandths of a light year out, etc.)

I've argued that there IS evidence for it (including the existence of subspace communications, which we know is multi-Light Year. As you have described in your "Star Wars Myths" page under "Empire not having superluminal sensor tech" you indicate that there IS reason to believe there is. This specific one is invariably countered with "there is no reason to assume that superluminal sensor tech and communications tech are related."

So what's the problem? You have evidence, you draw deductions from that evidence. If you had no evidence at all, they would have a point.

Anyhow, we have two "absence of evidence" claims:

1.) That there is no proof FOR superluminal sensor detection at light year ranges, and there are events that prove they CANNOT detect ships at greater than light hour-ranges (even more specifically, that "there is no evidence" to believe that other factors may be limiting sensor ranges in those instances, other than technological limiations, so this means it IS a tech limit.)

And light aircraft can get within a few miles of a radar station by flying low, even though the range of radar can be hundreds or even thousands of miles. Similarly, spacecraft running silent or behind obstacles may not be detectable even if they are within range.

2.) There is no proof that superluminal communications and sensor technologies are related (the way radar and radio are.) and would have comparable ranges.

Proof is an absolute and meaningless requirement. However, we can deduce from the physics of any radiation which is known to interact with objects. The only evidence we need is that this radiation does exist, can be detected, and does interact with objects.

Does the "if there is no evidence, therefore there is no reason it exists" apply in this case to both points, or does the presence of potential evidence ni FAVOR of it nullify that?

They are presenting you with an unreasonable demand for a particular FORM of evidence rather than simply asking for any kind of evidence which supports the conclusion. This is an old debating trick (the creationists are masters of it). Evidence which involves some deductive reasoning is still evidence. In order to attack it, you would have to attack the deductive reasoning. But you can't dismiss evidence simply because it must be interpreted.

And to a larger extent, is "absence of evidence" only applicable when we HAVE no reason to believe at all that something should or should exist?

No observational evidence. Speculation based on suppositions about human nature, for example, may be considered "reasons" but they are hardly considered "evidence".

That is, if there IS evidence suggesting the existance (in the superluminal sensor range example, the fact they have subspace communications at light-year ranges enough to infer similar sensor ranges, or does "absence of evidence" overrule it?)

There is evidence to support it, so "absence of evidence" does not apply. Moreover, we are not talking about the absence or presence of technology at all in this case; we are only talking about its range. There is no doubt that they have sensors! I don't see why you believe this argument has anything to do with the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" tautology.

[Gandalf]

To hit on a point made earlier in this thread, they do have toilets in Trek.
Neelix refers to the "lavatries" in Bride of Chaotica!.

I know it was probably a joke, but I like to make my point.

[Gandalf]

To hit on a point made earlier in this thread, they do have toilets in Trek.
Neelix refers to the "lavatries" in Bride of Chaotica!.

I know it was probably a joke, but I like to make my point.

[Patrick Ogaard]

To hit on a point made earlier in this thread, they do have toilets in Trek.
Neelix refers to the "lavatries" in Bride of Chaotica!.

I know it was probably a joke, but I like to make my point.

Ah, but remember: lavatory could also be applied just to a simple sink for handwashing purposes. I'm sure someone somewhere is sufficiently goofy to use that nitipick to argue that there is no evidence for the presence of toilets on Starfleet ships.

Also, with transporters that can be used in delicate neurosurgery (the DS9 episode in which a mad serial killer implants his memory engrams in another character and Bashir then uses a transporter to extract them), why bother with toilets? When feeling a bit of pressure, simply have the offending biomass beamed out and recycled. Okay, maybe not. Plumbing transporter accidents could be gruesome.

[oberon]

To hit on a point made earlier in this thread, they do have toilets in Trek.
Neelix refers to the "lavatries" in Bride of Chaotica!.

I know it was probably a joke, but I like to make my point.

Ah, but remember: lavatory could also be applied just to a simple sink for handwashing purposes. I'm sure someone somewhere is sufficiently goofy to use that nitipick to argue that there is no evidence for the presence of toilets on Starfleet ships.

Also, with transporters that can be used in delicate neurosurgery (the DS9 episode in which a mad serial killer implants his memory engrams in another character and Bashir then uses a transporter to extract them), why bother with toilets? When feeling a bit of pressure, simply have the offending biomass beamed out and recycled. Okay, maybe not. Plumbing transporter accidents could be gruesome.

from merriam-webster.com:

Main Entry: 1toi·let
Pronunciation: 'toi-l&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French toilette cloth put over the shoulders while dressing the hair or shaving, diminutive of toile cloth
Date: circa 1695
1 archaic : DRESSING TABLE
2 : the act or process of dressing and grooming oneself
3 a (1) : BATHROOM, LAVATORY 2 (2) : PRIVY b : a fixture that consists usually of a water-flushed bowl and seat and is used for defecation and urination
4 : cleansing in preparation for or in association with a medical or surgical procedure <a pharyngeal toilet>

[Patrick Ogaard]

To hit on a point made earlier in this thread, they do have toilets in Trek.
Neelix refers to the "lavatries" in Bride of Chaotica!.

I know it was probably a joke, but I like to make my point.

Ah, but remember: lavatory could also be applied just to a simple sink for handwashing purposes. I'm sure someone somewhere is sufficiently goofy to use that nitipick to argue that there is no evidence for the presence of toilets on Starfleet ships.

Also, with transporters that can be used in delicate neurosurgery (the DS9 episode in which a mad serial killer implants his memory engrams in another character and Bashir then uses a transporter to extract them), why bother with toilets? When feeling a bit of pressure, simply have the offending biomass beamed out and recycled. Okay, maybe not. Plumbing transporter accidents could be gruesome.

from merriam-webster.com:

Main Entry: 1toi·let
Pronunciation: 'toi-l&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French toilette cloth put over the shoulders while dressing the hair or shaving, diminutive of toile cloth
Date: circa 1695
1 archaic : DRESSING TABLE
2 : the act or process of dressing and grooming oneself
3 a (1) : BATHROOM, LAVATORY 2 (2) : PRIVY b : a fixture that consists usually of a water-flushed bowl and seat and is used for defecation and urination
4 : cleansing in preparation for or in association with a medical or surgical procedure <a pharyngeal toilet>

In the Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, 1998 edition, the third definition is as follows:

3. a bowl or basin with running water for washing or bathing purposes; washbowl.

[Stormtrooper THX-1138]

*finds it amusing that this thread has deviated into a comparative discussion of the definitions of "toilet" *

[Patrick Ogaard]

*finds it amusing that this thread has deviated into a comparative discussion of the definitions of "toilet" *

Hey, anything goes in Shady Debating Tactics 101.

A sufficiently determined nitipicker/dissectionist/reductionist can find a way to twist almost any clear statement. Case in point would be someone insisting that the mention of lavatories would provide no support for the presence of toilets, since lavatory does not absolutely have to refer to a toilet facility. It's a stupid debating tactic, but people do use it, and sometimes it works.

[CmdrWilkens]

*finds it amusing that this thread has deviated into a comparative discussion of the definitions of "toilet" * :lol:

Hey, anything goes in Shady Debating Tactics 101. :D

A sufficiently determined nitipicker/dissectionist/reductionist can find a way to twist almost any clear statement. Case in point would be someone insisting that the mention of lavatories would provide no support for the presence of toilets, since lavatory does not absolutely have to refer to a toilet facility. It's a stupid debating tactic, but people do use it, and sometimes it works.

The funy thing is shady debating tactics tend only to work against those who know theya re bad tactics. I say that because only people who know the tactics are shady will become frustrated with the continual use of them.

[Jawawithagun]

so, didn't Picard hide in the "Ladies Room" in one of the TNG shows, when the Enterprise was taken over by hostiles (again)?

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

As to the exsistance of toilets in the star trek universe.

In DS9, many references are made to "waste extraction," as a station system. It was, in fact, thought to be a "shitty" job to do. Funny, how replication-transporter technology hasn't made PLUMBING obsolete! If the waste must be dealt with, it must be real, and come from SOMEWHERE. (What a Klingon turd smells like, I DO NOT want to know!) Also, when Quark went back in time, and caused the Roswell incident, Rom searched the cargo hold, while Quark was in waste extraction. Having the time to search a cargo hold, implies, that the process isn't instantatrious, or even quick, like the transporter cycle.