Talk:Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
From Iron Chariots Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
(response to very old (but still relevant) objection) |
(Scientific investigation and deductive logic.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I don't agree with the example given for limited exploration not counting as evidence (as opposed to justification for a belief of a claim). I think examining the shoreline and seeing no life is evidence of no life, but insufficient to make a definitive claim. --[[User:Zurahn|Zurahn]] 03:24, 15 July 2008 (CDT) | I don't agree with the example given for limited exploration not counting as evidence (as opposed to justification for a belief of a claim). I think examining the shoreline and seeing no life is evidence of no life, but insufficient to make a definitive claim. --[[User:Zurahn|Zurahn]] 03:24, 15 July 2008 (CDT) | ||
: The example doesn't (and didn't, when the comment above was made) claim that it isn't ''evidence''; it just says that making a conclusion on the basis of such flimsy evidence is not warranted. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 14:04, 5 November 2009 (CST) | : The example doesn't (and didn't, when the comment above was made) claim that it isn't ''evidence''; it just says that making a conclusion on the basis of such flimsy evidence is not warranted. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 14:04, 5 November 2009 (CST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Scientific investigation and deductive logic. == | ||
| + | |||
| + | The note at the end of "Scientific investigation" is not strictly true. If H→P2, then ¬P2→¬H. There is a difference between not finding P2 and finding ¬P2. The article seems to be talking about the latter, but then claims that ¬H does not follow. | ||
Latest revision as of 03:24, 27 December 2010
I don't agree with the example given for limited exploration not counting as evidence (as opposed to justification for a belief of a claim). I think examining the shoreline and seeing no life is evidence of no life, but insufficient to make a definitive claim. --Zurahn 03:24, 15 July 2008 (CDT)
- The example doesn't (and didn't, when the comment above was made) claim that it isn't evidence; it just says that making a conclusion on the basis of such flimsy evidence is not warranted. - dcljr 14:04, 5 November 2009 (CST)
Scientific investigation and deductive logic.
The note at the end of "Scientific investigation" is not strictly true. If H→P2, then ¬P2→¬H. There is a difference between not finding P2 and finding ¬P2. The article seems to be talking about the latter, but then claims that ¬H does not follow.
