So I was flicking though this thread >>8992570 and some

>>8995907
>In particular there seems to be a common theme running thought it that you need evidence that something doesn't exist. Now to my mind that doesn't make sense since how can something that doesn't exist ever leave behind evidence that it was never there.
You can't know if something was 'never' there, but you can know if something is not there currently, simply by something else being there

>>8995907
>that you need evidence that something doesn't exist.
but absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence

>>8995927
Instead of trotting out your ebbin Carl Sagon maymay, why not engage with the argument? What would the evidence of something not existing look like? I mean if it doesn't exist, how can it interact with the universe to leave evidence?

>>8995944
>why not engage with the argument?
Because the argument is based on a faulty understanding of what science can do, which is particularly funny since OP seems to think he/she is an authority on science.

Formulating precise questions is a very important part of science, no scientific experiment to my knowledge can verify whether something never existed, only whether something existed in some timeframe which depends on what this something is and what traces this something hypothetically should leave behind in that timeframe.

>>8995948
But that would imply that we can't rule things out. So as far as your concerned, flying horses might have existed in the past? Damn it's time to give up on /sci/.

>>8995956
>But that would imply that we can't rule things out.
Correct, there are limitations on the conclusions we can draw using the scientific method.

>>8995959
So; Homeopathy, The Loch Ness Monster, Vaccines causing autism. We can't rule those out?

>>8995959
I'm sorry but this is just wrong. Science works in a Bayesian way, we continually up date our beliefs with new evidence, eventually they become near certainties.

>>8995967
>We can't rule those out?
Why do you think so? You could test for homeopathy causing autism the same way as researchers have already looked for a link between vaccines and autism and found none, though I don't see how you would test for the Loch Ness monster causing autism.

>>8995971
>I'm sorry but this is just wrong. Science works in a Bayesian way, we continually up date our beliefs with new evidence, eventually they become near certainties.
The conclusions we draw are limited by the experiments we can perform. To my knowledge we can't answer questions about things outside the observable universe so we can't draw conclusions about that outer area.

>>8995982
>homeopathy causing autism
Cute. But seriously if you can't rely on a lack of evidence then I don't see how you could ever rule out something like vaccines causing autism. In the end these are just increasingly sophisticated correlations. So there is no evidence showing that vaccines don't cause autism, just no statically significant evidence for the hypothesis that vaccines cause autism.

This is exactly the problem in the OP, how can there be evidence for something that doesn't exist? There can't be, so when we look for evidence that vaccines cause autism, and don't find it, we reject the hypothesis and accept the null.

>>8995994
>But seriously if you can't rely on a lack of evidence then I don't see how you could ever rule out something like vaccines causing autism.
I'm confused what you're calling evidence now, what is all the research that has been done on autism and vaccines if it's not evidence?

File: 1491862299721.jpg (13KB, 227x225px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 227x225px

>everyone thinking that science proves anything
>everyone not knowing that science merely disproves the impossible

>>8995994
>>8995999
also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy

>Reviews of the evidence by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,[9] the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Institute of Medicine of the US National Academy of Sciences,[10] the UK National Health Service,[11] and the Cochrane Library[12] all found no link between the MMR vaccine and autism.
>Reviews of the evidence
>the evidence

File: 1497878546709.jpg (109KB, 1000x699px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1000x699px

>>8995907
>In particular there seems to be a common theme running thought it that you need evidence that something doesn't exist.
b8
You got destroyed in that thread and started a new one to lick your wounds.

>>8995999
You've misunderstood the OP. In that thread there are people that say something along the lines of "If you preform some study, and in that study you find no evidence for your hypothesis, then you can't reject the hypothesis in place of the null". Instead they seem to think that you need some physical evidence that proves something never existed.

So in the vaccine case, there is not physical evidence that prove vaccines don't cause autism, there is just a lack of evidence for the hypothesis "Vaccines cause autism".

>>8996015
>In that thread there are people that say something along the lines of "If you preform some study, and in that study you find no evidence for your hypothesis, then you can't reject the hypothesis in place of the null". Instead they seem to think that you need some physical evidence that proves something never existed.
I'm not concerned with the posts in that thread, the issue in this thread is that the OP seems to think that the scientific method grants some limitless/omniscient view of the universe

>there is not physical evidence that prove vaccines don't cause autism
I still don't understand what you're calling evidence. What would be physical evidence that vaccines do cause autism? How are the experiments done not physical evidence that vaccines don't cause autism?

>>8996026
>the issue in this thread is that the OP seems to think that the scientific method grants some limitless/omniscient view of the universe
No it's not. The issue is that OP has noticed that some people think that negative evidence exists, ie. evidence like some particle resonance that implies a particular particle doesn't exist. Obviously that's wrong, since like he said, if something doesn't exist how can it leave any evidence behind. Instead what happens is that we search a particles mass range, and when we find nothing, conclude that such a particle doesn't exist.

>>8996045
I'll ask for the third and last time because this is getting boring, what are you calling evidence? Do you make no distinction between negative evidence and absence of evidence?

> Instead what happens is that we search a particles mass range, and when we find nothing, conclude that such a particle doesn't exist.
this is evidence

>>8996083
>this is evidence
Right, so not finding anything is evidence that there's nothing there. But then you'll have people like >>8995927 and >>8995948 who would tell you that just because you haven't found anything doesn't mean there's nothing there. In fact >>8995948 goes further, and says you can't rule things out. It's such a ludicrous setup some of these people have in their minds.

>>8996109
What part of this still confuses you?

You say
>so not finding anything is evidence that there's nothing there.
So we agree this is evidence, but then the post >>8995927 is about an absence of evidence not being evidence of absence. This has nothing to do with the evidence you're talking about, since then there's (obviously) no absence of evidence.

And again, >>8995948 says nothing about evidence of absence, just about the conclusions you can draw based on the experiments performed.

There's no 'ludicrous setup', you just need to be more aware of what science does and does not tell you.

>>8996129
>What part of this still confuses you?
What part still confuses you? It's explained to you that there are some people who would say that, if you look for something and don't find it, that you can't then default to your null hypothesis. And that's the problem.

Fuck me, is /sci/ this filled with brainlets?

>>8996152
>What part still confuses you?
Why you bring up posts about evidence of absence when we're talking about a scenario where evidence is present... if you can't see why this is confusing then I now at least have a sense why you're not even able to draw the correct conclusions given some set of evidence

> It's explained to you that there are some people who would say that, if you look for something and don't find it, that you can't then default to your null hypothesis.
If some people want to say that sure, but I don't say that, and I don't even see any post in this thread saying this so it's not really clear to me why this is relevant

>Fuck me, is /sci/ this filled with brainlets?
I'm trying to understand where you're coming from here but there's some serious gaps in your reasoning

>>8996180
>Why you bring up posts about evidence of absence when we're talking about a scenario where evidence is present
Why you bring up posts about absence of evidence* when we're talking about a scenario where evidence is present

>>8996180
Well if you read, or skim, that thread you don't care about (you know, the one that started this whole thread off). You'd find that some people have this idea that if you look for something and don't find it then, they say, you can't conclude that that thing you were looking isn't there. Just that you didn't find it. They want something physical and tangible that implies that what you were look for isn't there (I gave you an example from particle physics, they would want a resonance that implies that the particle you're looking for isn't there). Which leads to the problem of "if something isn't there, how can it leave evidence that it was never there" If it was just some thread on 4chan I'd assumed I was getting trolled, but this is an attitude I've found among quite a few other non-scientifically literate people. These people seem to believe that when you don't find what you're looking for it's actually a [math] lack [/math] of evidence. Clear now?

>If some people want to say that sure
No, not sure, that's not how it works.

>>8996215
>Well if you read, or skim, that thread you don't care about (you know, the one that started this whole thread off). You'd find that some people have this idea that if you look for something and don't find it then, they say, you can't conclude that that thing you were looking isn't there. Just that you didn't find it. They want something physical and tangible that implies that what you were look for isn't there (I gave you an example from particle physics, they would want a resonance that implies that the particle you're looking for isn't there).
So why don't you reply to the people and try to persuade them otherwise instead of making a new thread about it?

>Which leads to the problem of "if something isn't there, how can it leave evidence that it was never there"
But something never being there is a different question than something not being there now. As I said before, no experiment to my knowledge can provide evidence that something was 'never' there (if you know of such an experiment please share, it sounds interesting). This is why you need to be careful with the conclusions you make and this lack of clarity that keeps showing up on your part is probably why people in the other thread didn't understand what point you were making.

>Clear now?
No, you still seem unable to draw proper conclusions given some evidence, and unable to understand the limitations of science.

>No, not sure, that's not how it works.
That is how that works, people can believe whatever they want.

>>8996268
>no experiment to my knowledge can provide evidence that something was 'never' there (if you know of such an experiment please share, it sounds interesting).
And now we're back to thinking unicorns exist and demons cause epilepsy.

>>8996276
>And now we're back to thinking unicorns exist and demons cause epilepsy.
And now we're back to thinking there are no limitations on the conclusions you can draw using the scientific method. Another clear example of your lack of understanding.

You don't seriously believe science can answer all questions do you? How do you propose to answer a question about something happening outside the observable universe?

>>8996276
It sounds like you've taken the desire to think scientifically to an extreme you can't justify, it comes off as something similar to religious belief

You might want to read about scientism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

>>8996292
So you do think that unicorns and demons causing epilepsy are "on the table" as it were. After all you can't do an experiment to show they were never there.
>>8996303
>>>/x/

The absolute state of this board.

>>8996317
>So you do think that unicorns and demons causing epilepsy are "on the table" as it were. After all you can't do an experiment to show they were never there.
The point still seems to be flying over your head.

Either there are limitations on the conclusions you can draw or there aren't. If there are limitations, then plenty of conclusions, whether plausible or seemingly absurd, are left on the table as inaccessible to science. If not, then feel free to set up an experiment to collect evidence.

Since you linked /x/, it seems like you must ALREADY know of such limitations. The reason words like 'paranormal' and 'supernatural' even exist for things which can't be explained by science...

>The absolute state of this board.
The absolute state of your understanding of science... maybe the OP is right to teach philosophy to children

>>8996349
>The point still seems to be flying over your head.
Hey look I'm not the one that think that Unicorns and evil demons exist, or might exist.

>The reason words like 'paranormal' and 'supernatural' even exist for things which can't be explained by science...
Get out /x/tard, stop shitting up the board.

>>8995927
/thread

>>8996386
>>8996349
Samefag.

File: Capture.png (3KB, 341x102px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 341x102px

>>8996362
>Hey look I'm not the one that think that Unicorns and evil demons exist, or might exist.
The extent of a conclusion you could probably make using current scientific knowledge is that unicorns don't currently exist within our solar system, and haven't existed on Earth in the past 4 billion years considering a lack of fossil record. If this is somehow unsatisfactory for you, please explain why. And if you want to make a more precise claim, please provide evidence.

As far as 'evil demons' go you'd have to define what that even means, I don't read much religious scripture.

>>8996392
>Samefag.
No.

File: samefag.jpg (123KB, 1877x207px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1877x207px

>>8996395
>please explain why
But you've not done an experiment to show that they never existed, which by your own standards, shows that you can't rule them out.

>>8996414
>But you've not done an experiment to show that they never existed, which by your own standards, shows that you can't rule them out.
Agreed, that's why I never made the claim they never existed. I'm glad were finally getting somewhere.

File: Screen Shot 2017-06-25 at 4.13.22 PM.png (11KB, 156x64px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 156x64px

>>8996392
'no'

>>8996417
But you concluded that they don't exist in the solar system. How can you know unless you've preformed some experiment. You can't, according to you, so you can't rule it out.

>>8995927
Absence of evidence, after doing a reasonable search and turning up nothing, is evidence of absence.

>>8996422
>But you concluded that they don't exist in the solar system. How can you know unless you've preformed some experiment. You can't, according to you, so you can't rule it out.
I said 'probably' because I don't know the extent of imaging and searching for life that has been done on other planets in our solar system. To my knowledge no experiment has been run to specifically look for unicorns, but no trace of life has been found on the moon or Mars at least, so the evidence points to unicorns not currently being there.

>>8996425
>Absence of evidence, after doing a reasonable search and turning up nothing, is evidence of absence.
Wrong.

Doing a reasonable search and turning up nothing is evidence.

>>8996414
>But you've not done an experiment to show that they never existed,
THIS
We can say vaccines don't lead to autism because we've done a lot of study of both.
We haven't done any studies of aliens, we're mostly just waiting for them to show up and announce themselves (if they even exist).
"Absence of evidence" carries a lot more weight if there was some actual search for evidence.
And yes, I know SETI has been studying radio emissions, but we couldn't detect our own broadcasts at interstellar distances, so that's like looking for fish in a glass of water.

>>8996425
>after doing a reasonable search and turning up nothing
OK, what percentage of stars in the galaxy have you traveled to in search of aliens?

>>8996430
Ok well that's what I meant

>>8996430
>so the evidence points to unicorns not currently being there.
But they could have been in the past, and they might be in the future. In fact since there has been no direct search for them, then there might be a nice little grotto of unicorns hiding somewhere in Tycho crater. You've taken Empiricism to such a retarded extreme that even the 20th century empiricists are saying "damn anon, step back a bit".

More theories of evidence are based on the idea of Bayesian probability, we don't need to search everywhere in the past and in the future, we just need a "reasonable amount" of evidence to draw a conclusion about our hypothesis. This is the modern way of understanding evidence. Like it or not you're wrong.

>>8996446
>Ok well that's what I meant
Then absence of evidence is still not evidence of absence.

>>8996434
A pretty small percent. I am not claiming to have evidence on this issue

>>8996455
Ok i get you now

>>8996454
>But they could have been in the past, and they might be in the future. In fact since there has been no direct search for them, then there might be a nice little grotto of unicorns hiding somewhere in Tycho crater.
Correct.

>You've taken Empiricism to such a retarded extreme that even the 20th century empiricists are saying "damn anon, step back a bit".
No, I have a great appreciation for the scientific method, I just don't draw conclusions that the evidence doesn't support.

>More theories of evidence are based on the idea of Bayesian probability, we don't need to search everywhere in the past and in the future, we just need a "reasonable amount" of evidence to draw a conclusion about our hypothesis.
Wow, now you're even using science to exclude things from happening in the future? You're bordering on fortune telling now

>This is the modern way of understanding evidence.
No, this is your mistaken way of understanding evidence.

>Like it or not you're wrong.
If that makes you happy, stick with it.

File: Brainlets_pls_go.jpg (397KB, 835x1009px) Image search: [Google]

397KB, 835x1009px

>>8996470
>Correct.
So we're back to the problem that you can't rule anything out.
>No, I have a great appreciation for the scientific method
Extreme empiricism isn't the "scientific method"
>No, this is your mistaken way of understanding evidence.
Pic related.

File: ErnestBorgnine.jpg (485KB, 800x1007px) Image search: [Google]

485KB, 800x1007px

>>8996460
>A pretty small percent. I am not claiming to have evidence on this issue
Oops, I thought you were OP, my bad,

>>8996493
>So we're back to the problem that you can't rule anything out.
Why not?

>Extreme empiricism isn't the "scientific method"
Agreed.

>Pic related.
Irrelevant. The issue is that you still don't understand how to limit your conclusions to the parameters within the experiments you gathered evidence with.

>>8996530
>Irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant, it shows you don't understand what you're talking about I said that Baysianism was the modern understanding of evidence and that science effectively used Bayesian updating when attempting to confirm a hypothesis or theory, you said that this was my "Mistaken understanding of evidence". Well clearly it isn't. It's you that has the flawed understanding of evidence, in fact the problem you have is addressed in same book I took that screen shot from, in the chapter of logical positivism and empiricism. Anon, this conversation can go no further unless you become educated.

>>8996550
>It's not irrelevant, it shows you don't understand what you're talking about I said that Baysianism was the modern understanding of evidence and that science effectively used Bayesian updating when attempting to confirm a hypothesis or theory, you said that this was my "Mistaken understanding of evidence".
It is irrelevant, because the issue at hand is not whether Bayesianism is the modern understanding of science or not. The issue is that YOUR understanding of science and ability to interpret evidence is incorrect and that you mistakenly believe that it matches up with the modern philosophy.

>>8996515
no worries bro, sometimes I just wander into a thread and reply to something someone said to someone else.

Now I see why people are picking on what OP said. You do need evidence to claim that something does not exist.

File: bayes.jpg (350KB, 830x978px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 830x978px

>>8996568
>because the issue at hand is not whether Bayesianism is the modern understanding of science or not
That is EXACTLY the issue. The fact you don't even realise it is appealingly sad. Like I said this conversation can go no further, have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect anon? I suggest you look it up.

>My understanding
My understanding is that if you look and don't see anything, then you reject your hypothesis and accept the null. If you look again and you find something, you can update your beliefs, and lend weight to the hypothesis. You way of doing it can't answer the problem of induction, as we've seen.

>>8996591
>That is EXACTLY the issue. The fact you don't even realise it is appealingly sad.
It isn't, but if you'd like to use it as a strawman feel free.

>Like I said this conversation can go no further, have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect anon?
I have, and considering each of our viewpoints in this thread it applies much more obviously to you considering the number of claims you've made about things you don't fully comprehend.

>My understanding is that if you look and don't see anything, then you reject your hypothesis and accept the null.
This is the correct understanding, but as I've already said this is not the issue at hand.

It's about the details involved in this process, where your lack of understanding is in:
a) the proper formulation of a hypothesis
b) understanding the parameters of the experiment
c) interpreting the evidence properly
d) the limitations of your conclusions

>>8996610
>This is the correct understanding
But that's Bayesianism, from what you've described you're not a Bayesian. If you were then you'd be able to rule out the possibility of a Unicorn enclave on the moon. The fact you constantly want to say something along the lines "well right at this very moment there are no Unicorn enclaves on the moon" shows that you're an extreme example of an empiricist. Worse still, you're an empiricist who thinks the answer to the problem of induction is "we can't be sure that things (the laws of physics, for example) will be the same in the future". So you've completely undermined science as an institution. It's just incredible that you can believe that and not care. I'm sure that you're going to tell me that you don't actually believe that, but that's the only way your view logically flow together.
>I've already said this is not the issue at hand.
You can say this as many times as you want, but it's not true. This is the issue. How to understand evidence has always been the issue, right from the start. The fact you think that it's not shows that I've wasted my time, to think I could have been beating one out.

>>8996662
>Worse still, you're an empiricist who thinks the answer to the problem of induction is "we can't be sure that things (the laws of physics, for example) will be the same in the future". So you've completely undermined science as an institution. It's just incredible that you can believe that and not care. I'm sure that you're going to tell me that you don't actually believe that, but that's the only way your view logically flow together.
I'm glad you at least acknowledge that you're attacking a strawman here.

>You can say this as many times as you want, but it's not true.
Likewise.

>How to understand evidence has always been the issue, right from the start.
In your previous post you said the issue is whether Bayesianism is the modern understanding of science or not. The issue at hand is your (wilful?) inability to reason from evidence to conclusion.

>>8996690
>Bayesianism is the modern understanding of science or not.
Right, which is what we're talking about. Anyway anon. I'm going to go beat one out, then maybe do some QFT problems. The conversation has reached it's logical end point. The book I was quoting from earlier is "Theory and Reality" By Godfrey-Smith. I encourage you to read it, since it's clear you really need to. It's be good for you despite the fact that you're not working in the sciences.

>>8996704
>Right, which is what we're talking about.
No, what we're talking about if your personal interpretation of evidence leading to unreasonable conclusions.

>Anyway anon. I'm going to go beat one out, then maybe do some QFT problems. The conversation has reached it's logical end point. The book I was quoting from earlier is "Theory and Reality" By Godfrey-Smith. I encourage you to read it, since it's clear you really need to. It's be good for you despite the fact that you're not working in the sciences.
Enjoy yourself, all I can suggest is maybe reading another book on scientific philosophy since apparently that one didn't get the point across to you.