Page 3 of 3

Re: Proof of No Extraterrestrial Life

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:15 pm
by OlegTheBatty
landrew wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:
landrew wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:
landrew wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:Hypothesis: there is a pen on this desk

I gather all the evidence from examining 1 square femtometer. I find no evidence for a pen. I conclude the hypothesis is false. Reasonable?
Common mistake. You don't see a pen, so "a pen doesn't exist." Actually it may or may not, therefore the likelihood is an X, not a zero. You are concluding the hypothesis is false, but all you can actually do is "fail to disprove the null hypothesis" -this is the basis of the experimental part of the scientific method.

Sagan was correct in that we can't assume that something doesn't exist based on our lack of evidence for it's existence. Thus, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." To put it another way; someone tells you that your house is on fire, but you don't see or smell smoke, so you assume it didn't happen.
?????

Has your reading comprehension gone down the shithole?

What I'm saying is that the very concept 'absence of evidence' is irrelevant if the sample size is too small.
Sample size is irrelevant to concluding a hypothesis is false. There's simply no means to do so.
The confusing part of your post is "examining 1 square femtometer." What relevance is that? Your wife asks you if you have the receipt for the massage you took last week, so you look on one small spot on one table, and conclude that it doesn't exist? Nice try.

I'm not alone by any means, in the belief that life could exist elsewhere. I doubt any reputable scientist would "conclude the hypothesis is false" as you have. Please provide more guidance for how I can improve my reading comprehension further.
FFS LANDREW, I"M AGREEING THAT PROOF OF ABSENCE IS NOT ESTABLISHED!!!

I'm saying that . . . nm.
How do you explain: "I conclude the hypothesis is false. "
I didn't conclude the hypothesis is false, I was giving an example where invoking the 'absence of evidence' principle is irrelevant due to small sample size.

Re: Proof of No Extraterrestrial Life

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:26 pm
by landrew
OlegTheBatty wrote:
landrew wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:
landrew wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:
landrew wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:Hypothesis: there is a pen on this desk

I gather all the evidence from examining 1 square femtometer. I find no evidence for a pen. I conclude the hypothesis is false. Reasonable?
Common mistake. You don't see a pen, so "a pen doesn't exist." Actually it may or may not, therefore the likelihood is an X, not a zero. You are concluding the hypothesis is false, but all you can actually do is "fail to disprove the null hypothesis" -this is the basis of the experimental part of the scientific method.

Sagan was correct in that we can't assume that something doesn't exist based on our lack of evidence for it's existence. Thus, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." To put it another way; someone tells you that your house is on fire, but you don't see or smell smoke, so you assume it didn't happen.
?????

Has your reading comprehension gone down the shithole?

What I'm saying is that the very concept 'absence of evidence' is irrelevant if the sample size is too small.
Sample size is irrelevant to concluding a hypothesis is false. There's simply no means to do so.
The confusing part of your post is "examining 1 square femtometer." What relevance is that? Your wife asks you if you have the receipt for the massage you took last week, so you look on one small spot on one table, and conclude that it doesn't exist? Nice try.

I'm not alone by any means, in the belief that life could exist elsewhere. I doubt any reputable scientist would "conclude the hypothesis is false" as you have. Please provide more guidance for how I can improve my reading comprehension further.
FFS LANDREW, I"M AGREEING THAT PROOF OF ABSENCE IS NOT ESTABLISHED!!!

I'm saying that . . . nm.
How do you explain: "I conclude the hypothesis is false. "
I didn't conclude the hypothesis is false, I was giving an example where invoking the 'absence of evidence' principle is irrelevant due to small sample size.
OK then. *shake hands*

Re: Proof of No Extraterrestrial Life

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:19 pm
by Gord
Stop conflating the terms "evidence" and "proof", dammit.

Re: Proof of No Extraterrestrial Life

Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 3:05 pm
by Major Malfunction
Landrew struggles with context.

Re: Proof of No Extraterrestrial Life

Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 3:09 pm
by landrew
Major Malfunction wrote:Landrew struggles with context.
I struggle with you.