4 ms·
"the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignora
by joshuak 13y ago
"the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
- TeMPOraL 13y agoActually, it is (a weak form of bayesian ~). http://ojs.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/informal_logic/article/viewFile/2967/2516 http://ojs.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/informal_logic/ar... http://lesswrong.com/lw/ih/absence_of_evidence_is_evidence_of_absence/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/ih/absence_of_evidence_is_evidence_o...
- joshuak 13y agoInteresting. However, your sources are rather obscure, and I'm not sure what you mean by "a weak form." I'd say a Baysian analysis is a way to evaluate the veracity of an argument from ignorance, not necessarily a replacement of that argument. An argument from ignorance is a strict subset of a baysian analysis in which there is no causal relationship between the missing evidence, and the conclusion. This is such a case. So we can conclude by using a baysian analysis that this is in fact an argument of ignorance. Unless, of course, you have additional statistical samples that show a non zero relationship between not knowing about NSAs activity and the fact that they are engaged in that activity.