Evidence of absence
Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:34 pm
My interest has been piqued by what amounts to an argument of logical fallacy between Raider and NRLC.
To put this in perspective, they are interpreting this two different ways. Raider is taking the term "proving a negative" literally in the mathematical sense, and seeks to prove a negative by providing negative numbers. This is distinct from NRLC's use of the term which is better described in the title of this entry, and NRLC is right when he says that Raider doesn't understand it. So for what it's worth knowing Raider, I'm here to help.
Here is a philosophical example;
"Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist. A simple example of evidence of absence: A baker never fails to put finished pies on her windowsill, so if there is no pie on the windowsill, then no finished pies exist. This can be formulated as modus tollens in propositional logic: P implies Q, but Q is false, therefore P is false."
Now let's apply this to the core of the dispute between NRLC and Raider over whether or not there is junior rugby league in the four main football states. NRLC's position is that there are no pies on the windowsill. Raider's position is that there is but they aren't on the windowsill. So NRLC is right to ask that the pies be shown on the windowsill (meaning - show the evidence of junior rugby league). It is not right for anyone to tell NRLC to prove there aren't any pies on the windowsill. You can't. It's a logical fallacy, which is what "proving a negative" is truly all about.
Now Raider has also tried to apply this to other factors and messing it up in the process. For instance;
"VFL is not Australian & is infact Japanese" and to prove it "I can't find any evidence to disprove this so I'm right"
Now what Raider is attempting to do here is try to say that because there is no evidence that the game wasn't invented in Japan, it must have been invented in Japan. The trouble is that there is plenty of evidence that it was invented in Australia. NRLC gave just a sample of that evidence, or to apply the above analogy he showed us where the pies are when they weren't on the windowsill. This destroyed Raider's argument both in fact and in the comparison with the prevailing issue over junior rugby league numbers. Raider tried to go to NRLC's side of the debate to prove a point, only for NRLC to show him what Raider should be doing.
It's a similar scenario with the others.
And the other thing is that NRLC has not hesitated with evidence on each challenge (except one and only because Xman got in first). Raider is hesitating because he knows he's arguing against a smart person. He can fight back by showing evidence himself, but he can't bring himself to do it unless there's something in it for him. I applaud NRLC's resistance and agree that it's Raider who's doing all the running - although it's more akin to a chook with it's head cut off than Forrest Gump.
Anyway, that should explain what "proving a negative" truly is. Now is Raider's chance to prove that he is at least willing to be educated, stop moving the goal posts, and face the issue head on. Or is it the case that thugby league fans like him are truly that dumb?
To put this in perspective, they are interpreting this two different ways. Raider is taking the term "proving a negative" literally in the mathematical sense, and seeks to prove a negative by providing negative numbers. This is distinct from NRLC's use of the term which is better described in the title of this entry, and NRLC is right when he says that Raider doesn't understand it. So for what it's worth knowing Raider, I'm here to help.
Here is a philosophical example;
"Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist. A simple example of evidence of absence: A baker never fails to put finished pies on her windowsill, so if there is no pie on the windowsill, then no finished pies exist. This can be formulated as modus tollens in propositional logic: P implies Q, but Q is false, therefore P is false."
Now let's apply this to the core of the dispute between NRLC and Raider over whether or not there is junior rugby league in the four main football states. NRLC's position is that there are no pies on the windowsill. Raider's position is that there is but they aren't on the windowsill. So NRLC is right to ask that the pies be shown on the windowsill (meaning - show the evidence of junior rugby league). It is not right for anyone to tell NRLC to prove there aren't any pies on the windowsill. You can't. It's a logical fallacy, which is what "proving a negative" is truly all about.
Now Raider has also tried to apply this to other factors and messing it up in the process. For instance;
"VFL is not Australian & is infact Japanese" and to prove it "I can't find any evidence to disprove this so I'm right"
Now what Raider is attempting to do here is try to say that because there is no evidence that the game wasn't invented in Japan, it must have been invented in Japan. The trouble is that there is plenty of evidence that it was invented in Australia. NRLC gave just a sample of that evidence, or to apply the above analogy he showed us where the pies are when they weren't on the windowsill. This destroyed Raider's argument both in fact and in the comparison with the prevailing issue over junior rugby league numbers. Raider tried to go to NRLC's side of the debate to prove a point, only for NRLC to show him what Raider should be doing.
It's a similar scenario with the others.
And the other thing is that NRLC has not hesitated with evidence on each challenge (except one and only because Xman got in first). Raider is hesitating because he knows he's arguing against a smart person. He can fight back by showing evidence himself, but he can't bring himself to do it unless there's something in it for him. I applaud NRLC's resistance and agree that it's Raider who's doing all the running - although it's more akin to a chook with it's head cut off than Forrest Gump.
Anyway, that should explain what "proving a negative" truly is. Now is Raider's chance to prove that he is at least willing to be educated, stop moving the goal posts, and face the issue head on. Or is it the case that thugby league fans like him are truly that dumb?
> 