Re: Meaning of Zero and All, Application to archaeology
From: Steve Marcus (smarcus_spamout__at_cox.net)
Date: 01/22/05
- Next message: I.E_Johansson: "Re: Interesting archeological discovery - Emperor Qin's tomb"
- Previous message: Philip Deitiker: "Re: Meaning of Zero and All, Application to archaeology"
- In reply to: Eric Stevens: "Re: Meaning of Zero and All, Application to archaeology"
- Next in thread: Eric Stevens: "Re: Meaning of Zero and All, Application to archaeology"
- Reply: Eric Stevens: "Re: Meaning of Zero and All, Application to archaeology"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 10:36:58 -0500
"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:72b3v0pfs7j4g2e7mcfrua4chrb5d5f8lv@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:22:12 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
> <smarcus_spamout_@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>>news:3cf1v0li1plitsanio4hpglh1vjfqm8ppg@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:48:49 -0700, "Tedd Jacobs"
>>> <Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Eric Stevens" wrote...
>>>>> On 21 Jan 2005 00:04:19 GMT, Philip Deitiker <Nopdeitik@att.net.Spam>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In sci.archaeology, Eric Stevens created a message ID
>>>>>>news:4v50v05cu9s9upmirpc1m296iur2f83h27@4ax.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:14:03 GMT, Philip Deitiker
>>>>>>> <Donevenask@worlnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I know that Alan was Joking, apparently Steve didn't catch on.
>>>>>>>>But on a more serious note. This is in response to Doug's
>>>>>>reply
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"
>>>>>>>>I've never understood that 'old dictum'.
>>>>>>>>Absence of evidence is in fact evidence of absence. Not proof,
>>>>>>but
>>>>>>>>evidence of the probability of absence. And how likely that
>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>>depends upon the context.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The old dictum in fact is "Absence of evidence is NOT evidence
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>> absence" though many would argue that it was.
>>>>>>>>"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --- lengthy exposition snipped ----
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Thus when a person declares Zero frequency of an event based
>>>>>>on zero
>>>>>>>>events he is also saying that the sampling for (not of) such
>>>>>>events
>>>>>>>>was great, that biasing or sampling errors is not a factor
>>>>>>worthy of
>>>>>>>>affecting the conclusion. And when a person says that a zero
>>>>>>events
>>>>>>>>does not reflect the reality or possibilities he is saying
>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>>sampling is poor, or the sampling was biased or that there
>>>>>>were
>>>>>>>>sampling errors to a degree in which a zero frequency
>>>>>>conclusion
>>>>>>>>should not be drawn. He is also saying, implicitly saying that
>>>>>>>>because he knows that the zero result in terms of binomial
>>>>>>>>probability opens the possibility for an infinite number
>>>>>>events of
>>>>>>>>non-zero frequency, that he has some trend that approaches
>>>>>>with non-
>>>>>>>>zero result the parameter proximal to where the sampling
>>>>>>>>result/parameter crosses the Y=0 axis. If we hold every
>>>>>>argument to
>>>>>>>>this standard of plausibility then many arguments will be
>>>>>>summarily
>>>>>>>>eliminated, sort of a kook filter, right off the bat. Does
>>>>>>this
>>>>>>>>argument mean something to the individual, or is it something
>>>>>>they
>>>>>>>>must ignore because they don't understand it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's probably simpler for the ordinary individual to say 'the
>>>>>>reason
>>>>>>> you have no evidence is that you haven't found it yet'.
>>>>>>:-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not true, there are many things that have no evidence in which
>>>>>>you while never have evidence because evidence does not exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can only say the evidence does not exist when you have evidence
>>>>> that it does not exist. Consider the Higgs boson. They have been
>>>>> searching for it for more than 30 years and so far, nothing. Yet they
>>>>> still keep looking. It's like a treasure hunt. You have to have faith
>>>>> that the treasure exists somewhere. That you eventually loose faith
>>>>> and give up does not mean that the treasure is not out there somewhere
>>>>> in the garden.
>>>>
>>>>kind of like "there is nothing before clovis!", "the world is flat",
>>>>"the
>>>>sound barrier can not be broken!",... no one had any evidence, so all
>>>>must
>>>>have been impossible, untill they found it. do UFO's exist? we dont
>>>>have
>>>>any evidence for it, and we dont have any evidence against it either.
>>>
>>> Quite right. :-)
>>
>>Actually, not. Here is a pro-UFO site playing around with Drake's
>>Equation
>>(aka as the Greenbank equation), which equation is an attempt to parse the
>>possibilities re intelligent life existing "out there."
>>
>>http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1739.htm
>>
>>What do you think of their analysis, which gives "165 immortal
>>civilizations" in our galaxy, and which relies upon "Fermi's Paradox" to
>>argue that even without any technology more advanced than ours, _we_ could
>>colonize the Milky Way Galaxy in only 50 million years? Seen any aliens
>>from "out there" lately?
>>
>>Here's some more on Drake's Equation, giving you the parameters involved:
>>
>>http://www.geocities.com/astrobio2000/A2.html
>>
>>Reasonable numbers plugged in to this equation yield just about one
>>civilization that could be "out there" to communicate. But assume that
>>the
>>pro-UFO site is correct; why are none of the aliens here; why don't the
>>communicate with us directly, why haven't we got positive evidence of
>>their
>>having visited Earth in the past?
>>
>>In short, given that the existence of life out there is a weak
>>possibility,
>>and that FTL travel is a weak possibility, and that finding the way to
>>_this_ particular planet is a weak possibility, it's actually correct to
>>state that absence of evidence that UFOs represent alien visitors is
>>fairly
>>strong evidence that UFOs don't represent alien visitors. It is also
>>correct to state that the absence of any evidence for present or future
>>contact by intelligent ET civilizations is pretty strong evidence that
>>they
>>don't exist.
>
> As usual, you are using the straw man technique to try and shift the
> grounds of the argument to something you expect to be able to win.
Get a clue, Eric. Just because you don't understand what someone has
written does not convert it into a strawman argument.
>
> Jjust concentrating on the last sentence before my reply, please read
> carefully what Tedd Jacobs wrote:
>
> "do UFO's exist? we dont have any evidence for it, and we dont have
> any evidence against it either."
>
> I responded 'quite right'. By writing 'actually not' you seem to be
> disagreeing. Which part of Tedd's statement do you think I am wrong to
> agree with?
The part that says that we don't have any evidence against it either. The
"evidence against it" comes in two parts:
Part I:
the fact that there is absolutely no evidence yet to support it despite our
ability to find archaeological evidence on so many other other things and
the absence of evidence to back up the myriad encounters and sightings
alleged to have taken place;
the fact that there is absolutely no evidence yet to support it despite the
number of UFO sightings and the investigations of them by so many
"believers" in them (where after all such investigations, is the concrete
evidence);
the fact that there is no logical reason based upon the archaeological
evidence we do have to suppose that it was necessary for ET visitors to have
"sparked" ancient civilizations;
the fact that even with respect to the origins of life on earth, there is no
necessity for ET visitors;
the fact that ET UFO's have never attempted direct contact, yet for some
strange reason, seem to go out of their way to be flagrantly visible; (and
most importantly)
Part II: the possibility that such evidence might exist is an extremely weak
one based upon analyses such as Drake's equation which show that even given
the small possibility that intelligent ET life might develop "out there",
the possibility that it might co-exist in the same timeframe as our
civilization is vanishingly small, and the knowledge that even if it did
(and does), the distances involved and the magnitude of the number of places
that such life would have to visit in order to get her is so huge as to make
"contact" an extremely remote proposition.
"we dont have any
> evidence for it [UFO's]". If you agree with statement, do you disagree
> with the statement "we dont have any evidence against it [UFO's]
> either."
See above. The weakness of the possibility of UFO visitations here coupled
with the other matters of fact laid out above combine to convert the absence
of evidence for ET UFO's (let's be clear here: UFO's exist, by definition;
people see unidentified flying objects all of the time, but the issue is
whether such objects represent ET contact) into pretty solid evidence (that
is, a very strong indication) that UFO's are not ET in nature.
>
> If you know of **evidence** for UFO's I would be grateful if you could
> tell me what it is. Alternatively, ignoring Karl Popper for the time
> being, If we do have **evidence** against UFO's, I would like to know
> what it is.
See above. As to Popper, we've already discussed in November of 2004 that
you do not understand Popper, and (giving you the benefit of the doubt), you
therefore attempt to misapply his concepts to things that have nothing to do
with scientific theories. Please honor the man by not invoking his name
unless you improve your understanding of his precepts and learn when they
are, and are not, applicable.
Certainly, any fair analysis (either in a court of law applying evidentiary
standards and the toughest available legal standard of "beyond a reasonable
doubt" or in a scientific forum in which whatever measure of proof would
govern reaching a conclusion) demonstrates that the absence of evidence
against ET UFO's existing is compelling evidence that they have not existed,
and that they do not exist. Which is not the same thing as saying that it
*proves* that they have not existed and do not exist. The past and present
existence of ET UFO's stands on the same footing as that miraculous gust of
wind that will waft you to safety if you should jump off the Brooklyn
Bridge.
>
> Please note, the description of evidence does not require paragraphs
> of convoluted argument.
And that's your problem. Of course one needs to explain why the facts add
up to evidence. That you choose to pretend that you don't follow the
argument by labeling it "convulted" before you've even read it (I think,
rather, that you can well understand the arguments I and others present, but
quite often you simply don't wish to understand because they demolish your
cherised fantasies) does not lessen the necessity for such explanation.
Neither does it invalidate such explanation.
>
> --- snip ---
>
>
>
Steve
-- The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and should not be construed as either. This posting does not represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3 > Eric Stevens >
- Next message: I.E_Johansson: "Re: Interesting archeological discovery - Emperor Qin's tomb"
- Previous message: Philip Deitiker: "Re: Meaning of Zero and All, Application to archaeology"
- In reply to: Eric Stevens: "Re: Meaning of Zero and All, Application to archaeology"
- Next in thread: Eric Stevens: "Re: Meaning of Zero and All, Application to archaeology"
- Reply: Eric Stevens: "Re: Meaning of Zero and All, Application to archaeology"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
