no evidence for is not evidence against

[_wenglund]

Yes, it does.

You are obviously not grasping my point.

There was no evidence presented one way or the other.

That isn't what some people are suggesting here. They are essentially saying that no evidence, or the lack of evidence presented one way, is evidence against that one way, or in other words it is evidence for the other.

I say otherwise. I argue that the llack of evidence for the existence of cells in 1665 was not evidence against the existence of cells, but simply a lack of evidence one way or the other.

Evidence only means something when it is considered as part of an argument.

So? What does this have to do with what I am arguing?

You can't say there was no evidence when there is not even a concept.

Are you suggesting there actually was evidence even though there supposedly wasn't even a concept? I am sorry, but you aren't making sense.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Baker]

Take most any scientific discovery. For example, did cells not exist prior to the discovery of the microscope over 300 years ago? Prior to that time there wasn't any evidence of cells? Was the lack of evidence for cells prior to 1665 evidence against the existence of cells?

Of course not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

To be meaningful, an argument for or against the existence of a particular proposition requires that the proposition have first been advanced. It also requires that we have the means to test its validity.

So, advance a proposition - Mt. Everest exists

Ask yourself whether we have sufficient means of gathering evidence in support of Mt. Everest's existence. The answer is yes.

Is the evidence we can gather reliable? Again, yes, to any reasonable person.

Did we find such evidence? Yes.

Now we can draw a near-certain conclusion for the existence of Mt. Everest.

[_Morley]

Wade, you’re saying (correct me, if I’m wrong) that cells existed before there was any evidence of said existence.

You’ll have to agree, though: the evidence was always there. The evidence didn’t appear when cells were discovered. As the cells were always there, so was the evidence. The concept of cells didn’t exist. So, the evidence could not even be investigated.

With cells (as is the general rule with science), the discovery of the evidence of cells led to the development of the concept of cells.

If Leeuwenhoek had looked under the microscope and not seen cells, that would have been an absence of evidence. Not looking because he has no reason to look – that’s an absence of even the concept.

I’m not going to check if there’s a dollar in my pockets, when I don’t know that I even have pockets. Or what a dollar is. That’s not a lack of evidence.

Thanks. Good discussion. I think Baker makes a very good argument. Hope you don’t feel like we’re tag teaming you.

[_wenglund]

To be meaningful, an argument for or against the existence of a particular proposition requires that the proposition have first been advanced. It also requires that we have the means to test its validity.

So, advance a proposition - Mt. Everest exists

Ask yourself whether we have sufficient means of gathering evidence in support of Mt. Everest's existence. The answer is yes.

Is the evidence we can gather reliable? Again, yes, to any reasonable person.

Did we find such evidence? Yes.

Now we can draw a near-certain conclusion for the existence of Mt. Everest.

Uhmm....the question isn't how to make a meaningful argument, but rather whether the lack of evidence for someting is evidence against something. Please try and stay on point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Wade, you’re saying (correct me, if I’m wrong) that cells existed before there was any evidence of said existence.

You’ll have to agree, though: the evidence was always there. The evidence didn’t appear when cells were discovered. As the cells were always there, so was the evidence. The concept of cells didn’t exist. So, the evidence could not even be investigated.

With cells (as is the general rule with science), the discovery of the evidence of cells led to the development of the concept of cells.

If Leeuwenhoek had looked under the microscope and not seen cells, that would have been an absence of evidence. Not looking because he has no reason to look – that’s an absence of even the concept.

I’m not going to check if there’s a dollar in my pockets, when I don’t know that I even have pockets. Or what a dollar is. That’s not a lack of evidence.

Thanks. Good discussion. I think Baker makes a very good argument. Hope you don’t feel like we’re tag teaming you.

I don't mind being "tag-teamed." It is just that it helps to keep in mind that the issue is in regards to evidence that is "presented," or in other words evidence that is known. So, your point about the existence of evidence for cells prior to 1665, draws a distinction without any meaningful difference. There was no presented or known evidence for cells prior to 1665, and thus, for all intents and purposes, it may reasonably be said that there was no evidence for cells.

And, the fact that cells were not even a concept at the time, is irrelevent to whether the cells, as we now conceptualize them, existed or not prior to 1665, and whether their existence was contigient upon presentable or knowable evidence prior to that time? What we now conceptualize as cells, indisputably existed prior to 1665. The fact that there wasn't presented or known evidence for cells pre-1665, can't rationallly be said to be evidence against the existence of what we now know as cells.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Themis]

Wade

In short, absence of evidence for the existence of certrain things isn't evidence against their existence. Rather, we just cannot affirm, or may not believe as yet, in its existence.

I thought we covered this already. Absence of evidence in many cases is evidence of absence. Why do so many apologists keep bringing up this fallacy? Maybe it has to do with so much absence of evidence of many LDS claims. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

[_moksha]

I'll tell you guys one thing:

Mt. Everest does not exist until I see it with mine own eyes.

Excellent point. Its like calculating the probability for or against an event when all you have to go on is the number zero.