5 ms·

The absence of evidence is not a proof, in either direction. If someone believes something without evidence, and you do not believe it because of the lack of e

The absence of evidence is not a proof, in either direction. If someone believes something without evidence, and you do not believe it because of the lack of evidence, then you are both guilty of the same thing. If you flip a coin, and it lands out of sight, someone may choose to believe it is heads, and you may choose to believe it is tails. Both are choosing to believe something without evidence.

the_af 9y ago
But the burden of proof lies on the side making the extraordinary claim. In the case of flipping coins, there is no extraordinary claim, but there sure is in the case of psychic energy or whatnot.
- DigitalJack 9y ago
  That's BS. Whether a claim is extraordinary or not is opinion.
  - the_af 9y ago
    Not all opinions are born equal. This is similar to the dodgy assertion of "but it's just a theory!" -- especially when it's a theory for which there is reasonable evidence. There is no reasonable evidence for psychic energy, hence it's an extraordinary claim.
    - occultist_throw 9y ago
      Oh, but you're the arbiter of the equality of opinions and theories? And I thought I was arrogant.
      - the_af 9y ago
        Of course I'm not the arbiter, but there is a consensus (based on what works and is repeatable and doesn't require simply trusting based on faith) of what consists of reasonable evidence for a phenomenon. There are some gray areas, but psychic energy falls decidedly in the "extraordinary claims with a lack of evidence" camp.
- givan 9y ago
  I think "extraordinary" should be replaced with not common knowledge, "earth is flat" is always repeated in some way regarding assumptions on reality, think quantum mechanics.
abritinthebay 9y ago
> The absence of evidence is not a proof, in either direction. Not actually true! A common misconception. Absence of evidence when you'd expect to find it is actually extremely suggestive that a hypothesis is incorrect. It's key to the criterion of falsifiability. > If someone believes something without evidence, and you do not believe it because of the lack of evidence, then you are both guilty of the same thing. Also incorrect - the former is taking an unjustifiable position whereas the other is justifiable (and, in most cases, the null position). Your coin example suggests you don't really grok this topic if you think it applies at all.
- DigitalJack 9y ago
  > Not actually true! A common misconception. Absence of evidence when you'd expect to find it is actually extremely suggestive that a hypothesis is incorrect. It's key to the criterion of falsifiability. Ok, you got me. If you expect to find something and don't, it means your expectations were wrong, the experiment was bad, whatever. It proves nothing about the thing for which you have no evidence. The coin example should clarify your apparent misreading of "If someone believes something without evidence, and you do not believe it because of the lack of evidence, then you are both guilty of the same thing." Rephrasing: the statement "not believe it" means to "believe it to be false." It's a colloquialism. Both stances are choosing to believe something without evidence.
  - the_af 9y ago
    > It proves nothing about the thing for which you have no evidence. It proves something, though by itself it doesn't actually disprove the phenomenon. Maybe your experiment was flawed; maybe you have to adjust an hypothesis. But when it becomes a combination of many flawed experiments, lack of actual experiments, a field dominated by charlatans who don't know and don't practice the scientific method, it starts to indicate something stronger about the alleged phenomenon itself, doesn't it? By the way, people do not "believe" a flipped coin landed head or tails in the same way they believe in psychic energy. The equivocation of colloquial and precise terms isn't helpful here. If we're going to pretend we're considering psychic energy as an actual phenomenon, let's stick to precise terms.

the_af 9y ago

But the burden of proof lies on the side making the extraordinary claim. In the case of flipping coins, there is no extraordinary claim, but there sure is in the case of psychic energy or whatnot.

DigitalJack 9y ago
That's BS. Whether a claim is extraordinary or not is opinion.
- the_af 9y ago
  Not all opinions are born equal. This is similar to the dodgy assertion of "but it's just a theory!" -- especially when it's a theory for which there is reasonable evidence. There is no reasonable evidence for psychic energy, hence it's an extraordinary claim.
  - occultist_throw 9y ago
    Oh, but you're the arbiter of the equality of opinions and theories? And I thought I was arrogant.
    - the_af 9y ago
      Of course I'm not the arbiter, but there is a consensus (based on what works and is repeatable and doesn't require simply trusting based on faith) of what consists of reasonable evidence for a phenomenon. There are some gray areas, but psychic energy falls decidedly in the "extraordinary claims with a lack of evidence" camp.
givan 9y ago
I think "extraordinary" should be replaced with not common knowledge, "earth is flat" is always repeated in some way regarding assumptions on reality, think quantum mechanics.

abritinthebay 9y ago

> The absence of evidence is not a proof, in either direction. Not actually true! A common misconception. Absence of evidence when you'd expect to find it is actually extremely suggestive that a hypothesis is incorrect. It's key to the criterion of falsifiability. > If someone believes something without evidence, and you do not believe it because of the lack of evidence, then you are both guilty of the same thing. Also incorrect - the former is taking an unjustifiable position whereas the other is justifiable (and, in most cases, the null position). Your coin example suggests you don't really grok this topic if you think it applies at all.

DigitalJack 9y ago
> Not actually true! A common misconception. Absence of evidence when you'd expect to find it is actually extremely suggestive that a hypothesis is incorrect. It's key to the criterion of falsifiability. Ok, you got me. If you expect to find something and don't, it means your expectations were wrong, the experiment was bad, whatever. It proves nothing about the thing for which you have no evidence. The coin example should clarify your apparent misreading of "If someone believes something without evidence, and you do not believe it because of the lack of evidence, then you are both guilty of the same thing." Rephrasing: the statement "not believe it" means to "believe it to be false." It's a colloquialism. Both stances are choosing to believe something without evidence.
- the_af 9y ago
  > It proves nothing about the thing for which you have no evidence. It proves something, though by itself it doesn't actually disprove the phenomenon. Maybe your experiment was flawed; maybe you have to adjust an hypothesis. But when it becomes a combination of many flawed experiments, lack of actual experiments, a field dominated by charlatans who don't know and don't practice the scientific method, it starts to indicate something stronger about the alleged phenomenon itself, doesn't it? By the way, people do not "believe" a flipped coin landed head or tails in the same way they believe in psychic energy. The equivocation of colloquial and precise terms isn't helpful here. If we're going to pretend we're considering psychic energy as an actual phenomenon, let's stick to precise terms.