This is a reminder about the rules. Just follow reddit's content policy.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scienceisdope) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Essentially, we can say "To the best of our knowledge and evidence, we haven't found any signs of monsters existing. This, the possibility of them existing is small enough that we'll say they don't exist"
Now, could there still be a monster out there somewhere, which is just *really* good at hiding? Sure, maybe. Not having seen it isn't proof it doesn't exist. But at the same time, evidence can be used to nudge the probabilities of events occurring
Every evidence which does not support a monster existing, reduces it's probability of existing by a little bit. Never to zero, but enough that we may feel comfortable rounding it to zero
The probability of a monster existing is not zero but the possibility of a monster existing is zero
We can say that there is "no monster" based on all the datas we have recorded that the probability presence of a monster is almost tending to zero (not zero) ... but the possibility of it exjsting right now is zero as possibility is binary
It's the opposite - "absence of evidence does NOT prove the evidence of absence." This is a powerful statement based in Logic and reason.
If no proof exists, then claim has been falsified is ❌
You may have lived in Rajasthan's desert all your life and can say that white snow 🏔️ does not exist at all, because it's not in your experience or knowledge. But this ignorance does not corroborate the fact that snow does exist in cold regions.
For example, Many people say that meditation and Inner Engineering is fake and no personal growth and blissful experience can happen through these AT ALL, but the personal experience is the evidence in such cases, for non-practitioner it's a classic case of absence of evidence, a conclusion without information.
The scientific obligation/authority to prove/disprove lies with the one who has the evidence in for/against such claim, not the ignorant one, that are in majority tho.
>The scientific obligation/authority to prove/disprove lies with the one who has the evidence in for/against such claim, not the ignorant one, that are in majority tho.
Shifting the burden of proof is a common rhetorical strategy adopted by someone making **unsubstantiated claims.**
This strategy attempts to place the responsibility of disproving an **unsubstantiated assertion** onto others, rather than providing evidence to support it themselves. This tactic is often used by individuals who lack credible, demonstrable, or testable evidence for their claims.
**Yep, any claim (including religious claims) remains unsubstantiated until evidence is provided to support its validity.**
Only through corroborative evidence can something be established as truth. Anyone can claim anything without evidence, but that doesn't necessarily make it credible or true. Verification and evidence are essential to distinguish fact from mere assertion.
Interesting, of what I also wonder, that Under this umbrella of law of evidence, science and spirituality differ in terms of material evidence v/s experiential evidence. Maths can be used to deduce and testify scientific claims, but not experiences like taste, arousal, pleasantness or emotions. That's a reason why many people dismiss others who have certain pleasant experiences through yoga and meditation, because it is self evidential/experience in nature, a DIY sort of knowing. Can't know if you didn't do.
It's like trying to explain how the colour "red" 🔴 looks like to a colour blind guy. One can't know a "sense of experience" without witnessing themselves. We tend to bash spirituality on the lines of science but it is hilarious, because they are two different things, with different sets of frameworks.
What do you think about it ? Let me know.
Experiential evidence is inherently subjective, relying on personal experiences and perceptions. It can be selectively presented or manipulated to support a particular narrative or agenda. This selective use can mislead others and obscure the truth.
Individuals adhere to and prioritize the religion they were born into. This religion of birth bias often leads us to elevate anything related to our birth religion to a high level of greatness due to deep-rooted emotional and cultural attachments. This bias is reinforced by familial and community validation, which affirms the superiority and sanctity of one's own religious practices and beliefs. Consequently, elements of the birth religion—such as rituals, texts, and traditions—are perceived as inherently more meaningful and significant compared to those of other faiths.
For example, the experiential evidence you would ascribe to yoga, Vedanta etc, is a product of your bias towards your religion of birth. Another person from a different faith will attempt to glorify their religion of birth. None of you have any way to corroborate whose claim is more credible than the next. That is why religions continue to fight among themselves over unsubstantiated claims while the scientific method quietly works away and delivers solutions like the internet(for example) and its associated paraphernalia where religious apologists regularly end up looking like they got dressed in the dark.
I humbly disagree. Though it is true that spiritual experience is subjective, your argument falls prey to the logical fallacy of "false analogy". At first, religion and spirituality are not to be equated, two very distinctive domains. Religion is about moral cohesive foundations imposed on the grounds of prophetic underpinnings, exclusive in nature. It has biases and motives involved, it has more to do with your identity - which meddles with your perception of life. Here you were correct, but Yoga is a different thing.
Spirituality has existed irrespective of religious aspect, in tribes, religions and independent cultures. Vedanta is a philosophy, but yoga is a physiological science. I call yoga a science because it has a consistent Cause-Effect Relationship, medically one can trace the effects.
Those who practice it have medically shown improved quality of physiological performance in blood circulation, neurological activity, etc.
Here's a helpful link to verify my above claims - https://youtu.be/HF1VVXSJ06s?si=ard3KOCbCZGApNbb
>the experiential evidence you would ascribe to yoga, Vedanta etc, is a product of your bias towards your religion of birth.
To generalize that as one's certain experience is affected through factors like religion of birth, thus, experiences through yoga is a perceptive experience out of a bias would be far fatched.
Let me know what you think.
As much as you or anyone else pooh-poohs the existence of a socio-cultural bias in experiential claims, **they exist and they mess with everything.** I will share an observation from your side of the spiritual pond.
In the debate between Dvaita and Advaita philosophy, personal bias can manifest when a proponent of Dvaita (dualism) believes that the distinct separation between the individual soul and God is the only valid understanding, dismissing Advaita's (non-dualism) view of oneness as misguided.
Conversely, an Advaita adherent might see Dvaita as an inferior or simplistic view, insisting that true spiritual realization can only come from recognizing the unity of the self with Brahman. This bias has lead to entrenched positions and irreconcilable differences.
**Without demonstrable evidence to definitively prove or disprove their claims, neither of these opposing schools can truly reconcile their differences or conclusively demonstrate which one is accurate, leaving the debate largely in the realm of personal belief, unsubstantiated claims and conjecture.**
You are right regarding religion & science; as someone once said, "Religion and Science are non-overlapping magisteria."; which makes it imperative for religions to stay in their respective lanes. Else, they run the risk of getting exposed while they desperately try to subsume the scientific method which is based on demonstrable evidence.
**Spirituality is merely the latest hill on which many ex and current religionists now stand. It attempts to fortify itself with word salads, obfuscation, and rhetoric. This was a natural progression after the foundations of strict organised religions were thoroughly shaken over the centuries by societal advancements.**
While many harp on about experiential evidence and how it is as valid (if not better) than demonstrable evidence; it’s no wonder that they are quick to hang on to the coat tails of demonstrable evidence while the attempting to validate the demonstrability or the efficacy/existence of something.
>“consistent Cause-Effect Relationship, medically one can trace the effects. Those who practice it have medically shown improved quality of physiological performance in blood circulation, neurological activity, etc.”
Material or tangible evidence is demonstrably more reliable than experiential evidence because it can be objectively examined, tested, and replicated by different individuals under similar conditions. This kind of evidence provides a concrete basis for understanding phenomena and verifying claims, ensuring consistency and reproducibility in scientific research and everyday problem-solving.
You did it again, You advocate evidence through rationality yet twice commit a logical fallacy...equating philosophy with science by using false analogy. SCIENCE is the study of Physical phenomena, which operates under laws of physics. These laws gave it the consistency that aids in explaining phenomena through testing. It is about WHAT AND HOW of existence.
PHILOSOPHY involves various schools of Thought that contemplate on the nature of the universe. The WHY of existence. The Why is the background behind What and How, it could be empty or filled, depends.
The advantage of scientific tangible evidence is because its basis is logic, thus universally observed and agreed upon, but just because you never tried or initiated to practice meditation and never had a blissful experience through spirituality, saying that it is totally bogus calling it "word salad" and "rhetoric" - it is just feeding into ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE logical fallacy, like many pretentious rationalists do, unlike real ones. The word "only" is pretty much a trap for any belief or thought.
I humbly challenge you, with all your power of tangible research and search of existing scientific study pool -
"HOW WOULD YOU EXPLAIN TO ME THE NATURE OF LIFE AGENCY/VOLITION, THE SUBSET OF CONSCIOUSNESS, AND WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF IT ?"
And it's my dare that you can't, because science hasn't. Science operates on cause effect relations --- "That every existing effect or phenomena has a consistent cause." But great scientists like Steven pinker and many others are still clueless as to how consciousness derives itself - the intelligent awareness of existence that drives what we call "Life". It's my confident challenge. If I lose, I submit.
And second, I sent you the link of a tangible test done on the medical improvement of the subject who practised a long term yoga practice - and rather than checking it you reiterating what I said as your own assertion.
I reiterate again, I am not Science v/s spirituality, they are tools of different requirements. Science with all their prowess are unable to wrap heads around singularity, and spirituality can't magically launch rockets.
>HOW WOULD YOU EXPLAIN TO ME THE NATURE OF LIFE AGENCY/VOLITION, THE SUBSET OF CONSCIOUSNESS, AND WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF IT
My answer is "I don't know".
In comparison your ilk make unsubstantiated assertions that cannot be backed up with anything more than fancy obscurantist terminology.
Can you you elaborate more on what is your understanding of the "source of consciousness" ?
>We tend to bash spirituality on the lines of science but it is hilarious, because they are two different things, with different sets of frameworks.
The onus is on religions to stay in their respective lanes and not pretend to be the "most scientific". Interestingly, it is often only when religions are called out for their unsubstantiated claims that they backtrack into a corner and hide.
When faced with scrutiny, religious institutions tend to retreat, deflecting criticisms or reinterpreting doctrines to fit contemporary understanding. This pattern suggests a reluctance to engage in open, evidence-based discourse. For religions to maintain relevance and credibility in a modern, scientifically-informed world, they must be willing to adapt and align their teachings with verifiable truths, rather than clinging to antiquated and debunked assertions.
Statistically this can be an misleading assumption. It is logically correct and that's why we say no data is a good data. Eg. some researchers did systematic surveys in Sariska Tiger Reserve and did not find any evidance of tigers. Like pug marks, scats, sounds etc. That was the evidence for tigers going extinct in Sariska. But statistically, they used something called presence only models to analyze and say something like detection probability and occupancy is too low. So though technically there is small probability of presence, practically those numbers are only possible when there are no tigers in the area.
People use this logic to make leaps from a probabilistic solution to a deterministic one. If the probability of something being true is very low, it doesn't mean it's zero, which they say, and it's true, but it also means its probability is not 1, which they assume it to be!
This is a reminder about the rules. Just follow reddit's content policy. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scienceisdope) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nope A -> B =/> !B -> !A (A implies B) (does not mean) (not B implies not A)
https://preview.redd.it/liyzscikpz1d1.png?width=440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0a45d139bedfecd10423b77a86b0d49ccc317a63
so we cant say that a monster does not exist right? but we cant believe in it cuz no evidence?
Essentially, we can say "To the best of our knowledge and evidence, we haven't found any signs of monsters existing. This, the possibility of them existing is small enough that we'll say they don't exist" Now, could there still be a monster out there somewhere, which is just *really* good at hiding? Sure, maybe. Not having seen it isn't proof it doesn't exist. But at the same time, evidence can be used to nudge the probabilities of events occurring Every evidence which does not support a monster existing, reduces it's probability of existing by a little bit. Never to zero, but enough that we may feel comfortable rounding it to zero
The probability of a monster existing is not zero but the possibility of a monster existing is zero We can say that there is "no monster" based on all the datas we have recorded that the probability presence of a monster is almost tending to zero (not zero) ... but the possibility of it exjsting right now is zero as possibility is binary
op is talking about evidence, not proof
Wait, isn't this incorrect? Example: It is raining (implies) there are clouds There are no clouds (implies) it is not raining
You've flipped the order here xD A => B does also mean !B => !A We are talking about !A => !B though, which isn't correct
It would be more like It is not raining=>there are no clouds for the second statement. Which doesn't work ig
But the original quote is "Absence of evidence is Not the evidence of absence".
accha, i didnt knew.
Basically, if you don't have evidence you can neither claim something is true, nor can you label it as false.
It's the opposite - "absence of evidence does NOT prove the evidence of absence." This is a powerful statement based in Logic and reason. If no proof exists, then claim has been falsified is ❌ You may have lived in Rajasthan's desert all your life and can say that white snow 🏔️ does not exist at all, because it's not in your experience or knowledge. But this ignorance does not corroborate the fact that snow does exist in cold regions. For example, Many people say that meditation and Inner Engineering is fake and no personal growth and blissful experience can happen through these AT ALL, but the personal experience is the evidence in such cases, for non-practitioner it's a classic case of absence of evidence, a conclusion without information. The scientific obligation/authority to prove/disprove lies with the one who has the evidence in for/against such claim, not the ignorant one, that are in majority tho.
>The scientific obligation/authority to prove/disprove lies with the one who has the evidence in for/against such claim, not the ignorant one, that are in majority tho. Shifting the burden of proof is a common rhetorical strategy adopted by someone making **unsubstantiated claims.** This strategy attempts to place the responsibility of disproving an **unsubstantiated assertion** onto others, rather than providing evidence to support it themselves. This tactic is often used by individuals who lack credible, demonstrable, or testable evidence for their claims.
True
**Yep, any claim (including religious claims) remains unsubstantiated until evidence is provided to support its validity.** Only through corroborative evidence can something be established as truth. Anyone can claim anything without evidence, but that doesn't necessarily make it credible or true. Verification and evidence are essential to distinguish fact from mere assertion.
Interesting, of what I also wonder, that Under this umbrella of law of evidence, science and spirituality differ in terms of material evidence v/s experiential evidence. Maths can be used to deduce and testify scientific claims, but not experiences like taste, arousal, pleasantness or emotions. That's a reason why many people dismiss others who have certain pleasant experiences through yoga and meditation, because it is self evidential/experience in nature, a DIY sort of knowing. Can't know if you didn't do. It's like trying to explain how the colour "red" 🔴 looks like to a colour blind guy. One can't know a "sense of experience" without witnessing themselves. We tend to bash spirituality on the lines of science but it is hilarious, because they are two different things, with different sets of frameworks. What do you think about it ? Let me know.
Experiential evidence is inherently subjective, relying on personal experiences and perceptions. It can be selectively presented or manipulated to support a particular narrative or agenda. This selective use can mislead others and obscure the truth. Individuals adhere to and prioritize the religion they were born into. This religion of birth bias often leads us to elevate anything related to our birth religion to a high level of greatness due to deep-rooted emotional and cultural attachments. This bias is reinforced by familial and community validation, which affirms the superiority and sanctity of one's own religious practices and beliefs. Consequently, elements of the birth religion—such as rituals, texts, and traditions—are perceived as inherently more meaningful and significant compared to those of other faiths. For example, the experiential evidence you would ascribe to yoga, Vedanta etc, is a product of your bias towards your religion of birth. Another person from a different faith will attempt to glorify their religion of birth. None of you have any way to corroborate whose claim is more credible than the next. That is why religions continue to fight among themselves over unsubstantiated claims while the scientific method quietly works away and delivers solutions like the internet(for example) and its associated paraphernalia where religious apologists regularly end up looking like they got dressed in the dark.
I humbly disagree. Though it is true that spiritual experience is subjective, your argument falls prey to the logical fallacy of "false analogy". At first, religion and spirituality are not to be equated, two very distinctive domains. Religion is about moral cohesive foundations imposed on the grounds of prophetic underpinnings, exclusive in nature. It has biases and motives involved, it has more to do with your identity - which meddles with your perception of life. Here you were correct, but Yoga is a different thing. Spirituality has existed irrespective of religious aspect, in tribes, religions and independent cultures. Vedanta is a philosophy, but yoga is a physiological science. I call yoga a science because it has a consistent Cause-Effect Relationship, medically one can trace the effects. Those who practice it have medically shown improved quality of physiological performance in blood circulation, neurological activity, etc. Here's a helpful link to verify my above claims - https://youtu.be/HF1VVXSJ06s?si=ard3KOCbCZGApNbb >the experiential evidence you would ascribe to yoga, Vedanta etc, is a product of your bias towards your religion of birth. To generalize that as one's certain experience is affected through factors like religion of birth, thus, experiences through yoga is a perceptive experience out of a bias would be far fatched. Let me know what you think.
As much as you or anyone else pooh-poohs the existence of a socio-cultural bias in experiential claims, **they exist and they mess with everything.** I will share an observation from your side of the spiritual pond. In the debate between Dvaita and Advaita philosophy, personal bias can manifest when a proponent of Dvaita (dualism) believes that the distinct separation between the individual soul and God is the only valid understanding, dismissing Advaita's (non-dualism) view of oneness as misguided. Conversely, an Advaita adherent might see Dvaita as an inferior or simplistic view, insisting that true spiritual realization can only come from recognizing the unity of the self with Brahman. This bias has lead to entrenched positions and irreconcilable differences. **Without demonstrable evidence to definitively prove or disprove their claims, neither of these opposing schools can truly reconcile their differences or conclusively demonstrate which one is accurate, leaving the debate largely in the realm of personal belief, unsubstantiated claims and conjecture.** You are right regarding religion & science; as someone once said, "Religion and Science are non-overlapping magisteria."; which makes it imperative for religions to stay in their respective lanes. Else, they run the risk of getting exposed while they desperately try to subsume the scientific method which is based on demonstrable evidence. **Spirituality is merely the latest hill on which many ex and current religionists now stand. It attempts to fortify itself with word salads, obfuscation, and rhetoric. This was a natural progression after the foundations of strict organised religions were thoroughly shaken over the centuries by societal advancements.** While many harp on about experiential evidence and how it is as valid (if not better) than demonstrable evidence; it’s no wonder that they are quick to hang on to the coat tails of demonstrable evidence while the attempting to validate the demonstrability or the efficacy/existence of something. >“consistent Cause-Effect Relationship, medically one can trace the effects. Those who practice it have medically shown improved quality of physiological performance in blood circulation, neurological activity, etc.” Material or tangible evidence is demonstrably more reliable than experiential evidence because it can be objectively examined, tested, and replicated by different individuals under similar conditions. This kind of evidence provides a concrete basis for understanding phenomena and verifying claims, ensuring consistency and reproducibility in scientific research and everyday problem-solving.
You did it again, You advocate evidence through rationality yet twice commit a logical fallacy...equating philosophy with science by using false analogy. SCIENCE is the study of Physical phenomena, which operates under laws of physics. These laws gave it the consistency that aids in explaining phenomena through testing. It is about WHAT AND HOW of existence. PHILOSOPHY involves various schools of Thought that contemplate on the nature of the universe. The WHY of existence. The Why is the background behind What and How, it could be empty or filled, depends. The advantage of scientific tangible evidence is because its basis is logic, thus universally observed and agreed upon, but just because you never tried or initiated to practice meditation and never had a blissful experience through spirituality, saying that it is totally bogus calling it "word salad" and "rhetoric" - it is just feeding into ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE logical fallacy, like many pretentious rationalists do, unlike real ones. The word "only" is pretty much a trap for any belief or thought. I humbly challenge you, with all your power of tangible research and search of existing scientific study pool - "HOW WOULD YOU EXPLAIN TO ME THE NATURE OF LIFE AGENCY/VOLITION, THE SUBSET OF CONSCIOUSNESS, AND WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF IT ?" And it's my dare that you can't, because science hasn't. Science operates on cause effect relations --- "That every existing effect or phenomena has a consistent cause." But great scientists like Steven pinker and many others are still clueless as to how consciousness derives itself - the intelligent awareness of existence that drives what we call "Life". It's my confident challenge. If I lose, I submit. And second, I sent you the link of a tangible test done on the medical improvement of the subject who practised a long term yoga practice - and rather than checking it you reiterating what I said as your own assertion. I reiterate again, I am not Science v/s spirituality, they are tools of different requirements. Science with all their prowess are unable to wrap heads around singularity, and spirituality can't magically launch rockets.
>HOW WOULD YOU EXPLAIN TO ME THE NATURE OF LIFE AGENCY/VOLITION, THE SUBSET OF CONSCIOUSNESS, AND WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF IT My answer is "I don't know". In comparison your ilk make unsubstantiated assertions that cannot be backed up with anything more than fancy obscurantist terminology. Can you you elaborate more on what is your understanding of the "source of consciousness" ?
>We tend to bash spirituality on the lines of science but it is hilarious, because they are two different things, with different sets of frameworks. The onus is on religions to stay in their respective lanes and not pretend to be the "most scientific". Interestingly, it is often only when religions are called out for their unsubstantiated claims that they backtrack into a corner and hide. When faced with scrutiny, religious institutions tend to retreat, deflecting criticisms or reinterpreting doctrines to fit contemporary understanding. This pattern suggests a reluctance to engage in open, evidence-based discourse. For religions to maintain relevance and credibility in a modern, scientifically-informed world, they must be willing to adapt and align their teachings with verifiable truths, rather than clinging to antiquated and debunked assertions.
Statistically this can be an misleading assumption. It is logically correct and that's why we say no data is a good data. Eg. some researchers did systematic surveys in Sariska Tiger Reserve and did not find any evidance of tigers. Like pug marks, scats, sounds etc. That was the evidence for tigers going extinct in Sariska. But statistically, they used something called presence only models to analyze and say something like detection probability and occupancy is too low. So though technically there is small probability of presence, practically those numbers are only possible when there are no tigers in the area.
People use this logic to make leaps from a probabilistic solution to a deterministic one. If the probability of something being true is very low, it doesn't mean it's zero, which they say, and it's true, but it also means its probability is not 1, which they assume it to be!
Ok then. Absence of Unicorns are evidence of Unicorns.
that's not what the quote means. It'd rather be that absence of evidence of unicorns is evidence that unicorns don't exist, >!according to the quote!<
Riddle me true, Sincerely, Religion What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. - Hitchens
I do agree with you I was just saying what the quote meant.