Fine tuned universe

[Coito ergo sum]

One final clarification. As opposed to "a" god or "a" God. Do you have God? And, do you believe in God?

Read the fucking post, CES. Sheesh. I'm not responding to this derail attempt again.

Actually, if you read the rest of my post, I clarify, and withdraw that question.

And, it's not a derail anyway. We're talking about the fine tuned universe theory and belief in gods. Asking whether you believe in such things is not a derail. Check with a moderator.

[Seth]

How many times does it have to be said that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

Sometimes it is.

No, it's not. Not ever.

When evidence would rationally be expected, and it's not there, then it is evidence of absence. For example, if someone says there is a dog in the kitchen, and you go into the kitchen and you don't see a dog. The lack of evidence is evidence of the dogs absence.

Wrong. Going into the kitchen and not seeing a dog when a dog is expected is not an absence of evidence, it's evidence that the expected dog is absent. You obtain this evidence when you walk into the kitchen and do not find the dog.

An absence of evidence of the proposition that there is a dog in the kitchen would be NOT going into the kitchen to gather evidence on the proposition and then making the incorrect conclusion that the dog is not in the kitchen without evidence-gathering.

In other words, your failure or refusal to go in search of the evidence of the existence of God, or Dog (the absence of evidence) does NOT lead to a valid conclusion that either God or Dog is not present in the universe/kitchen. The absence of evidence is NEVER evidence of absence, it is only the absence of evidence. You are making the fundamental logical error of assuming that the evidence you find of the non-existence of Dog by going into the kitchen to look is in fact the absence of evidence. It's not, it's positive evidence of the non-existence of Dog in the kitchen. In this you are incorrect in your reasoning.

However, that is irrelevant to the question, because the absence of evidence in X is a reason not to believe in X. X may well exist, but it ought not be believed in until such time as there critically robust, scientifically valid evidence.

You've acknowledged that before, because you have said that as soon as an atheist claims that God doesn't exist, he must prove it by critically robust, scientifically valid evidence. You've said that before, so I'm not sure why you absolve the pro-God camp of that burden.

I'm not absolving anyone of anything, I'm merely holding you to your own self-stated ethical standard. What theists believe, and how justifiable their beliefs are is not really relevant because your argument amounts to an iteration of the "Ad Hominem Tu Quoque" fallacy. What theists believe or do has nothing to do with what you believe or do.

This is particularly true when the evidence of existence is denied and ignored because it does not meet some arbitrary standard that is in fact an iteration of the fallacy of begging the question which I call the Atheist's Fallacy:

"God does not exist"
"How do you know?"
"Because there is a lack of critically robust scientific evidence of God's existence."
"Why is the evidence provided by theists of miracles and visions and personal communications with God not considered valid scientific evidence?"

Because they are not repeatable or verifiable, and they are subjective accounts and personal experiences. Of course, it depends on the particular piece of claimed evidence. We can't address them all at once. You'll need to specify which miracle or vision or personal communication you're talking about.

Why?

"Because they are unscientific!"
"Why are they unscientific?"
"Because they make supernatural claims."

No no. Miracles are claimed to happen, but aren't verifiable or repeatable. They can't be tested or observed. They are mere second hand reports and suppositions. That's why they are not scientific evidence.

Which doesn't mean they didn't occur. You are making the false presumption that "scientific evidence" is the arbiter of truth, and that nothing can happen that science cannot subject to "testing or observation." But this is not the case. You cannot test "love" or "honor" or any of a large number of philosophical constructs, but they exist nonetheless. Nor can you test something that you cannot or did not observe, particularly some phenomenon that was the product of intelligent action. You cannot test whether or not I kissed my girlfriend this morning because you weren't there to observe it. You can't test the events at Fatima because you weren't there to observe them. This does NOT mean that the events did not occur or that the reports of the people who DID observe the event are incorrect or false. You presume that they are because you a priori reject any "supernatural" attribution of the events by virtue of your religious scientific bias, but that's not determinative of the facts or the truth of the event.

Just because some event or phenomenon is not "verifiable or repeatable" does not mean it cannot or does not occur. Science has it's built-in limitations in that regard, in that it can only make its assessments based on repeatable physical phenomena that are amenable to scientific observation, recording and analysis. Science cannot analyze what it is not there to record or observe if it's a one-time event produced by an intelligence determined not to have the event subjected to scientific analysis. Just ask David Copperfield about the truth of that statement.

A vision and a personal communication are just thoughts within a person's head, and are as such reports of something going on wholly within the skull of the person reporting the event. That is not scientific evidence in any context, whether the vision is of God or of a scientific experiment.

Not true because what goes on in a person's head can be both measured and influenced by outside forces. Thoughts are electrical phenomena, not some supernatural event. That we cannot yet read thoughts remotely (though we are far down the road of doing so) does not necessarily mean that they are not scientific evidence. Moreover, it has been shown that in some people, focused magnetic fields can stimulate thoughts and sensations that are described in a "religious" manner. Therefore, the possibility exists that a part of the brain evolved (or was intelligently designed) to "sense" the presence of God, who may be stimulating that part of the brain remotely using methods and techniques we are currently unable to detect, quantify or explain.

"Why are the claims supernatural?"
"Because they lie outside of known scientific facts."
"How do you know this?"
"Because theists say that God is a supernatural being."
"Have you tested their claims scientifically to see if their claims of supernaturality are valid?"

The miracle claims can't be tested or falsified, that is why they aren't scientific evidence.

A miracle claim cannot be tested or falsified at the moment, by existing science, and because such "miracles" do not happen predictably and repeatably. If they are phenomena caused by an intelligence at specific, limited times and places, science would only be able to observe, measure and quantify them if a scientist was in a position to do so when it occurred. But the fact that it's unlikely that science will be prepared to observe, measure and quantify such a phenomenon does not make the events either impossible or the reports of the events "not scientific evidence." If a person witnesses a meteorite fall to the ground in the woods, that's an observation that constitutes evidence. Just because the meteorite cannot be subsequently found does not mean that the observation is automatically false, it just means that it cannot be verified by producing the meteorite.

The visions and personal communications can't be tested because they are things a person claims to experience personally without anyone else being able to verify them. How would one test such a thing?

Not my department. Perhaps by MRI or some as-yet undiscovered and developed technology for mapping and analyzing brain activity. Current scientific evidence demonstrates that certain types of MRI scans combined with computer analysis can detect which of several objects an individual is looking at by looking at brain activity patterns. Perhaps someday technology will allow such verification of personal communications with God...if God wishes to communicate with someone during such an experiment. But the fact that we cannot currently do so does not mean that the claimed communications are not real, it merely demonstrates the failures of science.

If a scientist claimed that he witnessed a miracle, and therefore M Theory has been proven true, or he had a vision that showed M Theory to be true, that also would not be scientific evidence. There is no reason to give religious claims or God claims a different standard.

Your beliefs are irrelevant to the facts, and you're expressing your need for "scientific" verification of a claim before you will believe it. I'm saying that the fact that you aren't satisfied with the verifications you can obtain for the claims doesn't change the nature of the facts or the claims, it just points to your skepticism.

"No, of course not!"
"Why not?"
"Because they are supernatural and therefore science cannot test them."
"Are you sure? How do you know?"

Because you said they were miracles, which are by definition untestable because they presuppose a special diversion from the normal laws under which the universe operates. A miracle is a special event, not a repeatable event, by definition. If the miracle was of a miraculously successful experiment, but no matter how many times other people tried it, it didn't happen, then it would likewise not be evidence.

Atheists Fallacy and begging the question. "Miracles" are defined as "supernatural" and "presuppose a special diversion from the normal laws under which the universe operates" by YOU, not me. You are engaging the Atheists Fallacy by trying to use a dictionary definition created to define a "presupposed" supernatural phenomenon to dismiss what may in fact be a fully natural and explainable (by science) phenomenon that is merely beyond the ability of science to explain at our present level of technological and intellectual advancement.

That you cannot prove that a singular, intelligence-caused personal communication occurred does not mean that it did not occur. If I whisper to my girlfriend that I love her in bed, you cannot detect, quantify or verify that communication because you are not there to observe it. No unobserved phenomenon can be verified by science because it's a past event that went unobserved and unrecorded by science. Therefore, a personal communication from God to an individual cannot be verified, but like my whispering to my girlfriend, it can have occurred nonetheless. That science cannot verify it is utterly irrelevant and does not render the communication to be "miraculous" because it's not repeatable.

Visions and personal communications can't be tested for validity because they are by definition things people see or experience personally, in their own brains, which are specific to them. If the vision was of a scientific experiment, it would likewise not be testable, and would be discarded as not scientific evidence.

And yet such things still happen gazillions of times every day and are not deemed "miraculous" merely because science cannot observe, quantify or explain them. Communications with God are no different. Since science has not disproven the existence of God, claims of communications from God are just as rational and valid as claims of communication from anyone else that go unobserved by anyone but the two individuals privy to the communication, and none of them can be deemed "miraculous" merely because science has not and cannot verify them.

"Because theists say so."
"Are the claims of theists always correct?"
"No, of course not, their claims of a supernatural Sky Daddy are nonsense."
"Why?"
"Because nothing supernatural can exist. There is only nature."
"How do you know this?"
"Because the Scientific Method says so!"

This is all a straw man - it's just what you're making up. The reason the kind of evidence you proposed are not evidence of God-claims is because they wouldn't be evidence of any claim, for the reasons stated above.

It's a syllogism demonstrating the weakness of your argument by illuminating the fallacious nature of your reasoning. Again, just because science cannot or does not observe some event promulgated by an intelligence does not mean that the event did not occur, and personal observations by individuals of phenomena are scientific evidence because they are observations of an event. That they cannot be repeated or verified by scientists does not axiomatically make them false, supernatural or non-existent. The inability of science to "verify" events that occur as the result of unrepeatable intelligent action if science is not there to observe the actions involved does not mean that the actions or events did not occur, it just points to the fundamental failing of the scientific method to be able to account for everything through its methodology.

The scientific method doe snot say that that "nothing supernatural can exist." The scientific method says, that we look at a phenomenon and make testable hypothesis for it, then we do tests or make observations and we see if the results are in accord with what the hypothesis predicts.

That's not what you just said above. You said, "Because you said they were miracles, which are by definition untestable because they presuppose a special diversion from the normal laws under which the universe operates. A miracle is a special event, not a repeatable event, by definition."

My conversation with my girlfriend is a special event and not a repeatable event, so it it a miracle? No, it's just outside of the parameters of scientific verification, but it still happened. But Atheists say all the time that miracles don't occur because they are supernatural events. You just said so. I'm pointing out that just because you think it's a supernatural event because you don't happen to be able to observe or test the phenomenon doesn't make it a supernatural event, it makes it a one-time event you just weren't there to observe.

"Is the scientific method omnipotent or omniscient?"
"No, of course not, it's just a theory about the nature of the universe that says that all things are explainable by reference to natural actions and without supernatural causes."
"Is God unnatural or supernatural?"
"Yes."
"How do you know this?"
"Because theists say so."

Like everything else, you bait-and-switch. First you claim that this is about consideration of certain kinds of evidence. Now it's about the definition of supernatural and natural. Well, I've explained pretty plainly why the miracles and visions and personal communications would not be evidence of any scientific claim, so there is no reason to consider them evidence of a God claim. It doesn't matter if God is natural or supernatural. Miracles, visions and personal communications wouldn't be critically robust evidence of whether the dog was in the kitchen. If someone said, I saw a vision of a dog in the kitchen, we'd say "so?" And, then we'd go look in the kitchen. If there wasn't something dog-shaped in there, then we wouldn't believe the miraculous vision to be true.

True, a claim of a vision of a dog in the kitchen wouldn't be "critically robust evidence" but then again I never claimed it was. I merely said it's not "miraculous" just because you can't explain how the vision occurred, and you cannot rationally dismiss the claim as "supernatural" merely because you can't detect the mechanism of the vision or the author of the phenomenon. A claim of personal experience is entirely scientific in nature. Whether it's conclusive is something else again. What you believe, however, is irrelevant to the truth of the claim. You can disbelieve anything you like without that changing the nature of reality. Science has its limitations, one of which is that it can't draw rational conclusions about that which it is unable to observe and quantify. But that does not mean that things that science does not or is not able to observe and quantify do not exist or do not occur, it just means that science is deficient in that particular circumstance.

The fact that a personal communication from God cannot be observed or quantified (at the moment...or ever) by science is not proof that personal communications from God claimed by individuals are false.

Capice?

Oh, I understand quite well, the question is do you?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

“Athiests” actually is a misunderstood word
March 31, 2012 at 10:46 am PZ Myers

Oh, great. Now we’re being hectored by sorcerers. In An open letter to the New Athiests, some guy Who peddles a One Year Intensive Course in real magic wags his finger and lectures us on what’s wrong with “athiests” — we’re all a bunch of dicks.

In short, you have a lot of important things to say but as long as you continue to prenent yourselves like obnoxious zealots far keener to argue than discuss and talk at rather than with, you will actually only set yourselves further back and make the word “Athiest” into an even more misunderstood word than it already is. It wont be because you are wrong necessarily. It will just be because no one likes you.

Right. I’m going to take advice from a self-proclaimed sorcerer who makes a long tirade against atheists and misspells the term every single time.

Here’s the problem: I’ve noticed that people who deeply wrong, like sorcerers, Christians, and creationists, love to tell us that being right isn’t as important as being liked. I suspect they’re driven by self-interest rather than honesty.

All I can say is…you don’t understand me at all if you think I’m trying to persuade you to like me, dumbass.

So, this is not an uncommon problem for these loons. I thought ours was special!

[Coito ergo sum]

How many times does it have to be said that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

Sometimes it is.

No, it's not. Not ever.

When evidence would rationally be expected, and it's not there, then it is evidence of absence. For example, if someone says there is a dog in the kitchen, and you go into the kitchen and you don't see a dog. The lack of evidence is evidence of the dogs absence.

Wrong. Going into the kitchen and not seeing a dog when a dog is expected is not an absence of evidence, it's evidence that the expected dog is absent. You obtain this evidence when you walk into the kitchen and do not find the dog.

No, dude -- come on.

"Not seeing a dog" is "absence of evidence." I have no eyesight perception of a dog in the kitchen, so that evidence is absent. That is evidence of absence because we would naturally expect to see a dog. Is it still possible that there is a dog there? Maybe one wearing a special military invisibility cloak, or one that a deity magically rendered invisible? Sure. But the absence of any evidence that there is a dog in the kitchen is evidence of absence. Period.

An absence of evidence of the proposition that there is a dog in the kitchen would be NOT going into the kitchen to gather evidence on the proposition and then making the incorrect conclusion that the dog is not in the kitchen without evidence-gathering.

That would also be absence of evidence. But, since we don't expect to be able to detect dogs in the kitchen without going into the room, we can't consider it good evidence of absence. Not hearing barking, of course, is absence of evidence and is some evidence of absence. Not conclusive, but it is evidence consistence with the absence of a dog. If we heard a bark, we could conclude that there is likely a dog in the kitchen.

In other words, your failure or refusal to go in search of the evidence of the existence of God,

Your assumption that I've refused or failed to go search for "God" is without foundation. You assume I've not searched because I've concluded that I haven't seen anything that evidences the existence of gods.

or Dog (the absence of evidence) does NOT lead to a valid conclusion that either God or Dog is not present in the universe/kitchen.

Yes it is. Just like the absence of evidence of Carl Sagan's dragon is evidence of its absence. There is always the possibility that the no dog or no dragon hypothesis/theory will be falsified, but until then, we can't conclude that there is a dog or a dragon.

The absence of evidence is NEVER evidence of absence,

False. Already explained. "In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence." Irving Copi. See also Victor Stenger's explanation: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-st ... 82169.html

Without even knowing it, probably, what you're doing is using the argument from ignorance as a debate tactic to prove the existence of your proposed God. Your argument is like saying "There is no evidence that this mysterious remedy does not work, therefore it works." Basically, this argument from ignorance relies on a lack of research to somehow draw an affirmative conclusion. While this is a powerful method of debate to switch the burden of proof, appealing to ignorance is a fallacy. It's your fallacy, and it is what I have explained several times is among your dishonest debate tactics - it's part of your bait and switch.

[Seth]

How many times does it have to be said that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

Sometimes it is.

No, it's not. Not ever.

When evidence would rationally be expected, and it's not there, then it is evidence of absence. For example, if someone says there is a dog in the kitchen, and you go into the kitchen and you don't see a dog. The lack of evidence is evidence of the dogs absence.

Wrong. Going into the kitchen and not seeing a dog when a dog is expected is not an absence of evidence, it's evidence that the expected dog is absent. You obtain this evidence when you walk into the kitchen and do not find the dog.

No, dude -- come on.

"Not seeing a dog" is "absence of evidence."

Wrong. Not seeing a dog is evidence of absence.

I have no eyesight perception of a dog in the kitchen, so that evidence is absent.

Nope. You have it backwards. Prior to entering the kitchen there was an absence of evidence regarding the existence or non existence of a dog in the kitchen. The dog's existence was a probability only. Like Schroedinger's cat, before you enter the kitchen (or open the box) the dog is just a fog of probabilities, and there is no evidence. Once you enter the kitchen and look around and don't see a dog you now have positive evidence that the dog is absent. Evidence of absence is different from absence of evidence. It is the act of entering the kitchen and looking around that provides the evidence to determine the presence of a dog or not. If the dog is there, you have evidence the dog is there. If the dog is not there, you have evidence the dog is not there. But you are CREATING the evidence merely by looking in the kitchen, therefore there is no longer an absence of evidence the instant you gather the evidence EITHER PRO OR CON about the dog's presence in the kitchen.

Prior to entering the kitchen however, you have no evidence whether the dog is there or not and cannot draw a rational conclusion about the existence of the dog in the kitchen because, as is still true, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

That is evidence of absence because we would naturally expect to see a dog. Is it still possible that there is a dog there? Maybe one wearing a special military invisibility cloak, or one that a deity magically rendered invisible? Sure. But the absence of any evidence that there is a dog in the kitchen is evidence of absence. Period.

Nope. Try again. Go look for Schrodinger's cat, ponder on it a bit, and you will discover that you're wrong. Why would you "naturally expect to see a dog" and what on earth do your expectations have to do with the evidence of the dog's existence...or non-existence?

An absence of evidence of the proposition that there is a dog in the kitchen would be NOT going into the kitchen to gather evidence on the proposition and then making the incorrect conclusion that the dog is not in the kitchen without evidence-gathering.

That would also be absence of evidence. But, since we don't expect to be able to detect dogs in the kitchen without going into the room, we can't consider it good evidence of absence.

Correct. Now read your words again carefully and think about them.

Not hearing barking, of course, is absence of evidence and is some evidence of absence. Not conclusive, but it is evidence consistence with the absence of a dog. If we heard a bark, we could conclude that there is likely a dog in the kitchen.

Nope. Not hearing barking is absence of evidence, but not evidence of absence. And yes, if you hear a bark, you now have evidence. But not hearing a bark is not evidence that a bark is not impending or possible. It's not evidence of absence, it's just the absence of evidence, nothing more.

In other words, your failure or refusal to go in search of the evidence of the existence of God,

Your assumption that I've refused or failed to go search for "God" is without foundation. You assume I've not searched because I've concluded that I haven't seen anything that evidences the existence of gods.

Perhaps you should try harder.

or Dog (the absence of evidence) does NOT lead to a valid conclusion that either God or Dog is not present in the universe/kitchen.

Yes it is. Just like the absence of evidence of Carl Sagan's dragon is evidence of its absence. There is always the possibility that the no dog or no dragon hypothesis/theory will be falsified, but until then, we can't conclude that there is a dog or a dragon.

You've just contradicted yourself. See if you can figure out how.

The absence of evidence is NEVER evidence of absence,

False. Already explained. "In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence." Irving Copi. See also Victor Stenger's explanation: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-st ... 82169.html

Nope. First, this assumes that God, a sentient intelligence, is incapable of concealing himself from "qualified investigators." Second, asserting that investigators are "qualified" requires the presentation of the credentials of the investigators in investigating such phenomena plus certification that they were present and able to adequately investigate a particular phenomenon. While what you quote may be true "in some circumstances" this is clearly not the case with miracles or God. Unless a "qualified investigator" (please define such a person carefully) happens to be present during a "miracle" with the proper recording and measuring equipment, properly calibrated and ready to record data (and what would such equipment look like I wonder?) then no such claim of "proof of non-occurrence" is just so much Atheist religious bilge masquerading as reason and logic.

Without even knowing it, probably, what you're doing is using the argument from ignorance as a debate tactic to prove the existence of your proposed God. Your argument is like saying "There is no evidence that this mysterious remedy does not work, therefore it works."

Strawman. That's not what I'm saying at all.

Basically, this argument from ignorance relies on a lack of research to somehow draw an affirmative conclusion. While this is a powerful method of debate to switch the burden of proof, appealing to ignorance is a fallacy. It's your fallacy, and it is what I have explained several times is among your dishonest debate tactics - it's part of your bait and switch.

And yet you still can't get it right, or understand simple logical truths like "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," a maxim and logical truth that science has been using for thousands of years.

Try not creating strawman arguments, you'll do much better in your argumentation.

[Coito ergo sum]

How many times does it have to be said that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

Sometimes it is.

No, it's not. Not ever.

When evidence would rationally be expected, and it's not there, then it is evidence of absence. For example, if someone says there is a dog in the kitchen, and you go into the kitchen and you don't see a dog. The lack of evidence is evidence of the dogs absence.

Wrong. Going into the kitchen and not seeing a dog when a dog is expected is not an absence of evidence, it's evidence that the expected dog is absent. You obtain this evidence when you walk into the kitchen and do not find the dog.

No, dude -- come on.

"Not seeing a dog" is "absence of evidence."

Wrong. Not seeing a dog is evidence of absence.

Yes, the "not seeing" part is "absence of evidence." There is only evidence if something is perceived in some way, detected, measured, perceived, etc. "Not detecting" is "absence of evidence," and when it would be rationally expected for there to be some evidence, and it's absent, then it is evidence of absence.

I have no eyesight perception of a dog in the kitchen, so that evidence is absent.

Nope. You have it backwards.

Only in your own mind. I provided you with links and citations that say you're wrong.

Look - you are taking "absence of evidence" and saying that sometimes when we don't have any evidence that is actually evidence. What you're doing is admitting that the absence of evidence of a dog is evidence of absence. The absent evidence is the sight perception of a dog when a dog would be in eyeshot.

You're flat wrong, and it's apparent now, dishonestly so.

Prior to entering the kitchen there was an absence of evidence regarding the existence or non existence of a dog in the kitchen.

There was not an absence of evidence, though, WHERE IT WOULD RATIONALLY BE EXPECTED TO BE. People can't see dogs through walls. So, THAT absence of evidence is not in and of itself evidence of absence. However, if someone says "there is a dog in front of you," and you don't see a dog, the that absence of evidence IS evidence of absence because IT WOULD RATIONALLY BE SEEN UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If it's not there, it's not there until somebody proves it is there. Nobody has to prove it isn't there more than already proven.

Stupid shit will no doubt be posted in reply to this. Fuck you.

[Seth]

Yes, the "not seeing" part is "absence of evidence."

No, it's evidence of absence. It is the looking that creates the evidence, which can be either affirming the query or denying the query. Looking is the process of gathering evidence. In this process one may either find what one is looking for or not find what one is looking for. Finding what one is looking for is positive evidence of presence while not finding what one is looking for is positive evidence of non-presence.

There is only evidence if something is perceived in some way, detected, measured, perceived, etc.

Yes exactly. When one stands outside Shroedinger's box wondering if there is a cat inside or not, there is no evidence for or against the existence of the cat within the box. This is an absence of evidence. But, one cannot rationally infer from this absence of evidence that there is or is not a cat in the box. There are two possible outcomes of this inquiry; first, there is a cat inside; and second, there is no cat inside. Prior to opening the box (or going into the kitchen) there is only a question and a probability that a cat (or dog) exists in the box (or kitchen). There is no evidence, and because there is no evidence in either case, absence cannot be rationally inferred. Nor can existence.

Yet, when one opens the box, one perceives one of two states of being: there is a cat in the box or there is not a cat in the box. In the act of opening the box one has now gathered evidence towards the proposition of the contents of the box. It is the looking in the box (kitchen) for the cat (dog) that provides the evidence that can be used in coming to a rational conclusion about the contents of the box (kitchen).

"Not detecting" is "absence of evidence," and when it would be rationally expected for there to be some evidence, and it's absent, then it is evidence of absence.

Fail. "Not detecting" is evidence of absence because "detecting" implies an act of investigation, which in and of itself provides the necessary evidence to render your interpretation invalid. And your "rationally expecting for there to be some evidence" is also false because one cannot rationally expect to find a dog in a kitchen merely because someone claims there is a dog in the kitchen. In order to sustain this notion, you have to add evidence, such as your assessment of the reliability and honesty of the person making the claim. This too is evidence, and in your scenario is evidence in support of the claim of a dog in the kitchen that gives you a "rational expectation" that there will be a dog there when (if) you look.

But that's just begging the question. The question is "is there a dog in the kitchen?" Absent any evidence one way or the other (prior to investigation of the kitchen) there is an absence of evidence pointing either way, and therefore it is irrational to conclude that a dog is NOT in the kitchen (evidence of absence).

Once you look into the kitchen you gather evidence on what the contents of the kitchen are, and that may or may not include a dog. But you no longer have an absence of evidence, you have evidence, which may be evidence of absence or evidence of existence, depending on whether there actually is a dog in the kitchen. But without looking in the kitchen, and without inferring the existence of a dog from evidence gathered from outside the kitchen (like trust in the claimant or knowledge that the claimant does have a dog, which might increase the probability of a dog in the kitchen, but would not change this debate one whit) like a bark, or an odor, or a video camera image, in other word in the ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE of a dog in the kitchen, a rational inference cannot be drawn that there is no dog in the kitchen (evidence of absence).

I have no eyesight perception of a dog in the kitchen, so that evidence is absent.

Nope. You have it backwards.

Only in your own mind. I provided you with links and citations that say you're wrong.

Your citations are wrong for the reasons cited. Your Wikipedia reference says, right there in the first section, "Of course, in practice, it can be difficult to agree whether a particular experiment was a sufficiently "qualified investigation"." That is the basis of your logical failure.

You are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing, you are forwarding an argument from ignorance. You say "there may be a dog in the kitchen" and without investigating whether there is a dog in the kitchen you claim that it's "rationally expected" that there be a dog in the kitchen without any evidence supporting that assertion. In the same way (but with opposite polarity) you argue that because there is no evidence of the existence of God (absence of evidence), you can rationally infer that God does not exist (evidence of absence). But this is an argument from incredulity or ignorance because there is no "qualified investigator" who has the ability to determine whether God exists or not. Your argument amounts to "Well, I can't see God, so God cannot exist." Classic argument from ignorance.

Look - you are taking "absence of evidence" and saying that sometimes when we don't have any evidence that is actually evidence. What you're doing is admitting that the absence of evidence of a dog is evidence of absence. The absent evidence is the sight perception of a dog when a dog would be in eyeshot.

Nope. Not in the least. Read your own last sentence wherein you qualify your argument with "when a dog would be in eyeshot." That's investigation. Investigation produces evidence, in this case evidence of the presence of a dog or evidence of the non-presence of a dog. If no dog, then you have evidence of the non-presence of a dog and the hypothesis "is there a dog in the kitchen" is disproven. But until you look, the hypothesis cannot be either confirmed or dismissed because the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

This is where Wikipedia also fails. It qualifies the argument that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence by requiring that a "qualified investigation" be performed and that no positive evidence of existence is found. The problem with this construction is that an investigation, qualified or not, provides evidence of some sort. Evidence, you see, can be positive or negative, in other words evidence can either point towards confirmation of the hypothesis or away from the hypothesis. Evidence of an expanding universe pointed away from the steady-state hypothesis but towards an expanding universe hypothesis.

Looking in the kitchen and finding a dog points towards the hypothesis that there's a dog in the kitchen, while looking in the kitchen points away from the hypothesis that there's a dog in the kitchen. But in every case, investigation provides evidence.

But the actual absence of evidence does not permit one to infer anything about the hypothesis.

I posit: There is a cat in a box in my basement.

You have no evidence pointing either towards or away from my hypothesis. You don't know if I have a cat, a box or indeed a basement. If I have a cat, I may not have a box or basement. If I have a box I may not have a cat or a basement. If I have a basement I may have neither a cat nor a box. And so on through each of the possible mathematical combinations. You can infer absolutely nothing from my hypothesis because you have a total lack of evidence. You cannot infer that I have a cat, a box or a basement. But equally you cannot infer that I DO NOT have a cat, a box and a basement. The absence of evidence does not mean that there is evidence of absence.

Only by investigating me and my hypothesis can you determine if I have a cat, a box or a basement and which of those statements is true and in what combination. But each time you investigate a claim, you gather evidence. If I have a box and a cat, but not a basement, you cannot infer that the cat is in the box. If I have a basement and a box, you cannot infer that I have a cat because you have an absence of evidence. But you also cannot infer that I DO NOT have a cat if all you have investigated is whether I have a box and a basement.

You're flat wrong, and it's apparent now, dishonestly so.

No, I'm not, and you're getting pissed off because you're afraid you're wrong (and you are) and you don't want to be embarrassed and have to admit it, so you're beginning with the personal insults.

Prior to entering the kitchen there was an absence of evidence regarding the existence or non existence of a dog in the kitchen.

There was not an absence of evidence, though, WHERE IT WOULD RATIONALLY BE EXPECTED TO BE. People can't see dogs through walls. So, THAT absence of evidence is not in and of itself evidence of absence. However, if someone says "there is a dog in front of you," and you don't see a dog, the that absence of evidence IS evidence of absence because IT WOULD RATIONALLY BE SEEN UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Goalpost shifting. Not the same situation at all. If someone says "there's a dog in front of you" and you don't observe the dog, you have positive experiential evidence of the absence of a dog and therefore the falsity of the claim. Not at all the same thing as a hypothetical dog in the kitchen that you haven't yet investigated for properly...by looking for it.

You cannot rationally infer that there is a dog in the kitchen without some evidence that a dog and a kitchen exist and you have some evidence that the claim made is true. You can only investigate to see if there is a dog in the kitchen. Until you do, an inference that there is a dog in the kitchen is irrational based only on an unsupported claim that there is and NO OTHER EVIDENCE. Your problem is that you are inserting evidence into the situation but you're refusing to admit that you are doing so and you're trying to characterize that evidence as not-evidence. That's a logical and reasoning failure on your part.

See my example of the cat, box and basement above for a better illustration. Tell me what you can rationally infer from the claim I make: "I have a cat in a box in my basement."

Please list the rational inferences you can draw from that claim and explain your rationale and then we can examine your logic a bit more carefully.

[Seth]

If it's not there, it's not there until somebody proves it is there.

[Clinton Huxley]

Sweet balls of Jesus. Would a finely tuned universe contain Seth and CES? I contend only the circle of Hell that Dante deemed too implausible would contain such concentrated horror.

[Coito ergo sum]

Sweet balls of Jesus. Would a finely tuned universe contain Seth and CES? I contend only the circle of Hell that Dante deemed too implausible would contain such concentrated horror.

[Clinton Huxley]

You know I love you like a second best servant or reasonably competent hound, CES

[amused]

Sweet balls of Jesus. Would a finely tuned universe contain Seth and CES? I contend only the circle of Hell that Dante deemed too implausible would contain such concentrated horror.

[Seth]

Sweet balls of Jesus. Would a finely tuned universe contain Seth and CES? I contend only the circle of Hell that Dante deemed too implausible would contain such concentrated horror.

Nobody said it has to be a FRIENDLY fine-tuned universe...