no evidence for is not evidence against

[_Morley]

From another thread:

Because scientifically, no evidence for is not evidence against. Why did it take so long to find the city of Troy when we had so much information about it initially? With the global Flood, there is actual evidence against. Not so with the Book of Mormon civilizations.

You keep saying this: "no evidence for is not evidence against."

Help to educate me. What branch of science says, "no evidence for is not evidence against." I've studied science and even taught science, but I missed this. Searching, I cannot find any scientist saying this in argument of his/her disciple. (The exception would be those acting as apologists for religion, creationism, the Church, or the like--but they are not arguing for their specific disciplines.)

As the country song intones, I'm probably "looking for [the quotation] in the wrong places."

edited immediately for clarity

[_bcspace]

I think you would agree that most scientists accept the notion that evidence must be empirical and the statement which I use is just an outgrowth and description of that; something that can be tested.

My comparison between the situations of the state of evidence for/against the Flood vs. no evidence against Book of Mormon civilizations works well here in this context.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

From another thread:

Because scientifically, no evidence for is not evidence against. Why did it take so long to find the city of Troy when we had so much information about it initially? With the global Flood, there is actual evidence against. Not so with the Book of Mormon civilizations.

You keep saying this: "no evidence for is not evidence against."

Help to educate me. What branch of science says, "no evidence for is not evidence against." I've studied science and even taught science, but I missed this. Searching, I cannot find any scientist saying this in argument of his/her disciple. (The exception would be those acting as apologists for religion, creationism, the Church, or the like--but they are not arguing for their specific disciplines.)

As the country song intones, I'm probably "looking for [the quotation] in the wrong places."

edited immediately for clarity

It is considered an informal fallacy:

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

However, in some cases, it misses the point. No one is arguing that because there is no evidence for ancient Mormon civilizations, that means they couldn't exist. What one is arguing is that given that we do have extensive evidence for civilizations in the past, we would likely have found evidence for Book of Mormon civilizations also had they existed. That is different than just saying "no evidence", although I think most Mormon apologists will not understand the distinction.

Let's take an example. Suppose I told you that most Americans support candidate X for president. If I lived in another country and didn't know anything about American politics, I might say that I have no evidence that is true. That doesn't show that it is false, though. However, what if I randomly polled 100 Americans and none of them have ever heard of candidate X. Is that a case of "no evidence for"? No, it is actually case of evidence against. We have a reasonable expectation that if most Americans supported a certain candidate, then the odds are strong that a random sample would show some support and they would almost definitely at least know about him. That is the situation we have with Book of Mormon civilizations. Had they existed, it is close to impossible that we wouldn't find anything about them.

[_Morley]

I think you would agree that most scientists accept the notion that evidence must be empirical and the statement which I use is just an outgrowth and description of that; something that can be tested.

My comparison between the situations of the state of evidence for/against the Flood vs. no evidence against Book of Mormon civilizations works well here in this context.

BC, thanks for your answer. However, I think you're wrong.

No evidence for is absolutely evidence against.

By definition.

....

Doctor: "Ma'am, I see no evidence your child has a cold."

Lady: "Oh Doctor, what can that mean?"

Doctor: "No evidence for your child having a cold is evidence against your child having a cold."

Lady: "Huh?"

Doctor: "Sonny ain't sick. That'll be fifty dollars."

....


Saying that scientists would agree with you is specious, unless you can expound on who some of the scientists are.

Now, if you want so say, "no evidence for is not absolute proof against," I might agree.

But that's a completely different statement.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

I think you would agree that most scientists accept the notion that evidence must be empirical and the statement which I use is just an outgrowth and description of that; something that can be tested.

My comparison between the situations of the state of evidence for/against the Flood vs. no evidence against Book of Mormon civilizations works well here in this context.

BC, thanks for your answer. However, I think you're wrong.

No evidence for is absolutely evidence against.

By definition.

....

Doctor: "Ma'am, I see no evidence your child has a cold."

Lady: "Oh Doctor, what can that mean?"

Doctor: "No evidence for your child having a cold is evidence against your child having a cold."

Lady: "Huh?"

Doctor: "Sonny ain't sick. That'll be fifty dollars."

....


Saying that scientists would agree with you is specious, unless you can expound on who some of the scientists are.

Now, if you want so say, "no evidence for is not absolute proof against," I might agree.

But that's a completely different statement.

If the doctor said he saw no evidence of Sonny having a cold before actually seeing Sonny, then mom has a point.

[_bcspace]

No evidence for is absolutely evidence against.

By definition.

No scientific definition. It's merely a philosophical question when you put it that way.

Saying that scientists would agree with you is specious, unless you can expound on who some of the scientists are.

I suggest you study what it means to have empirical evidence.

[_Morley]

If the doctor said he saw no evidence of Sonny having a cold before actually seeing Sonny, then mom has a point.

Good point, Dad, except that then he is not looking at (or for) the evidence. He can't legitimately say there is or isn't evidence without some kind of investigation.

[_Morley]

No evidence for is absolutely evidence against.

By definition.

No scientific definition. It's merely a philosophical question when you put it that way.

Saying that scientists would agree with you is specious, unless you can expound on who some of the scientists are.

I suggest you study what it means to have empirical evidence.

I think I do know what it means. Please show me where I'm wrong. I'm willing to be convinced.

[_Kishkumen]

Whenever I am confronted by this approach, my response is this: show me evidence that supports your claim, and then I will judge whether it is worth entertaining. I firmly believe that the burden of proof is on the person who makes a claim. Mormons contend that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record. I say, "provide the evidence." So far, the evidence is very slender indeed. It is hardly sufficient to show that the Book of Mormon is in fact an ancient record. What need does anyone have to prove it is not? Prove it is. You LDS folk are the ones who claim this.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

Let me provide an example of a valid use of "no evidence for is not evidence against".

When Charles Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species", he freely admitted that at the time, there wasn't any fossil evidence to support it. He predicted, correctly, that we would find more evidence in the future, and that if we didn't, his theory was in trouble. Would it be fair to say that at the time that he wrote the book, the lack of fossil evidence amounted to evidence against evolution? That is what is meant by saying "no evidence for is not evidence against". At the time, the fossil record was so small that we wouldn't expect it to provide evidence for evolution, but that fact alone (the fact that the fossil record didn't provide evidence for) is not the same as saying that the fossil record provided evidence against evolution.