It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

xkcd settles questions regarding flying saucers, bigfoot, ghosts, lake monsters

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   
They are clever folks over at xkcd - and in case you dont' get the point it has to do with absence of evidence




posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   
But but but....dang. He makes a point.


Unless of course.....no, never mind.

AHA! I've got it. The reason there's no evidence is because people with smartphones never stop looking at their screens!

Phew. I can go back to believing now.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 02:01 PM
link   
why are you posting fallacious material?

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
- and in case you dont' get the point it has to do with absence of evidence

from you're "source" [emphasis added ]


This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (December 2011)
Ambox question.svg
This article or section may contain previously unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. (March 2013)
Gnome-searchtool.svg
This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. See the relevant discussion on the talk page. (March 2013)

the link you should have posted to ironically reveals the purpose of this thread [and the OP's Modus Operandi btw]


"Absence of Evidence is not evidence of absence"



Definition and usage

John Locke introduced the term "argumentum ad ignorantiam" in 1689 in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, (Chapter XVII section 20) and stated:[11]

Secondly, Another way that men ordinarily use to drive others and force them to submit to their judgments, and receive their opinion in debate, is to require the adversary to admit what they allege as a proof, or to assign a better. And this I call argumentum ad ignorantiam."

A 1700 copy of An Essay Concerning Human Understanding

Locke presented this type of argument as a form of eristic debate in which participants wrangle over the issues without substance in evidence, but to "drive each other" to accept a point.[1]


The statement "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" was made popular by Carl Sagan.[6] Sagan referred to arguments from ignorance as follows:

"Appeal to ignorance": the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa. (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe....) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.[12]

Sagan's widow Ann Druyan stated that Sagan's general position was that "science is saying in the absence of evidence, we must withhold judgment".[13] In this, she also echoed the words of Bertrand Russell, who in 1959 said: "If you can't find out whether [a thing] is true or whether it isn't, you should suspend judgement."[14] Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson expanded on UFOs, stating: "Remember what the U stands for (...): Unidentified. (...) If you don't know what it is, then that's where your conversation should stop, [rather] than say: "It must be..." anything. That's what argument from ignorance is."[15]





posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheMagus
why are you posting fallacious material?

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
- and in case you dont' get the point it has to do with absence of evidence

from you're "source" [emphasis added ]


This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (December 2011)
.....


that is not from my source at all - that is from Wikipedia - which was NOT my source.

But in any case, how does that make it "fallacious" - which means "wrong"?


edit on 17-7-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join