I thought Carl Sagan was smart why would he say something so dumb?

>>8457903
That's true though. Science is agnostic.

File: 1289.jpg (54KB, 450x293px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 450x293px

>>8457903

>>8457903
If he is using the formal definition of "evidence" the statement is fine. Under the colloquial definition of "evidence" it is dumb. He probably meant the formal definition of evidence meaning that statement would be like saying: "The fact that we have not seen an event which should increase or decrease our confidence in x does not indicate we should decrease our confidence in x".

>>8457903

yeah its true dumb dumb

>>8457942
>If he is using the formal definition of "evidence" the statement is fine.
No, it isn't. Under the formal definition of evidence, absence of evidence very much is evidence of absence. It may or may not be strong evidence, but it's always nonzero evidence.

What is true is that the absence of PROOF of something is not PROOF of absence. Evidence, not so much.

>"The fact that we have not seen an event which should increase or decrease our confidence in x does not indicate we should decrease our confidence in x".
But that's exactly what we SHOULD do.

File: Probability.png (301KB, 784x656px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 784x656px

>>8457932
Bullshit, why would anyone lie on the internet of all places.

>>8457956
You seem to not understand the semantics. If we have a sensor that when turned on and in the presence of substance x lights up 80% of the time, when turned on and not in the presence of substance x lights up 5% of the time, and never lights up while turned off. If it is turned off and not lighting up is that absence of evidence of the presence of substance x?

>>8457956
>Under the formal definition of evidence, absence of evidence very much is evidence of absence.
That's absurd. If you have done no research or tests observation of something, then you have no evidence that it exists, an absence of evidence, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it means you have no idea if it exists or not. For instance, if you are outside a barn, and a dog may be inside, and you haven't gone in to look, is it reasonable to say you have proof a dog is not inside? You'll look like quite an idiot if you assert it, and someone else finds the dog just by going inside and pointing it out.

>>8457989
No of course not. But I don't think that's the same thing. If I expect to find evidence of somethings presence and I don't then I should lower my expectation of its presence. That doesn't apply in your scenario since we aren't collecting evidence at all.

>>8457903
So turns out /sci/ is fucking retarded
He's obviously talking about the whole Black Swan thing. Debate semantics all you want you aspies, but its clear what is meant