Separate oven and hob on one circuit?

[JohnW2]

OK, fine. You assert that there are huge herds of flying unicorns living in the Arctic, I'll say "no there are not" instead of "I think that incredibly unlikely", and then you challenge me to provide evidence of their non-existence.

Indeed.

And meanwhile in the real world the rest of us can go about our lives with the absolute certainty that there are no huge herds of flying unicorns living in the Arctic.

Yu don't seem to recognise that situations differ, and that what stillp and myself have said is therefore an over-simplification. In the case of something whose existence would be obvious if it existed, the absence of that 'obvious evidence' would be strong evidence for non-existence. The Arctic is not very widely populated which dilutes the argument a little - but, had you said, say, Europe, the fact that hundreds of millions of people with eyes, over hundreds of years, had not ever seen any 'huge herds of flying unicorns' would be very strong evidence for their non-existence.

However, if you turn the clocks back a few decades, then the total absence then of any evidence for even the possibility of things such as the existence of life in the outer solar system or the existence of a super-massive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way could (should) not have been taken as evidence for the non-existence of those things - since, even if they did exist, we did not then have the means of finding the evidence of their existence.

The same applies to many things for which we have no evidence of existence or non-existence today. Again, absence of evidence for existence only constitutes evidence for non-existence when, if the something existed, there would be 'obvious evidence' for it's existence, which also requires that we have the means of detecting such evidence. We still have no evidence of the existence of life in the outer solar system, but now are developing the means of looking for it, so certainly do not take the current lack of evidence for its existence as a 'proof' that it does not exist.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Indeed.
Yu don't seem to recognise that situations differ, and that what stillp and myself have said is therefore an over-simplification. In the case of something whose existence would be obvious if it existed, the absence of that 'obvious evidence' would be strong evidence for non-existence. The Arctic is not very widely populated which dilutes the argument a little - but, had you said, say, Europe, the fact that hundreds of millions of people with eyes, over hundreds of years, had not ever seen any 'huge herds of flying unicorns' would be very strong evidence for their non-existence.

But that would be absence of evidence for their existence.

You and stillp maintain that such an absence of evidence of existence is not evidence of non-existence.

 

[JohnW2]

But that would be absence of evidence for their existence. You and stillp maintain that such an absence of evidence of existence is not evidence of non-existence.

Didn't you read the 'less over-simplified' version which you just quoted?

Absence of evidence for existence can be taken as evidence for non-existence, if, and only if, the evidence for existence would be 'obvious' - or, at least, easily obtained, if the the something existed. As I said, "huge herds of flying unicorns in Europe" would be a good example.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

Absence of evidence for existence can be taken as evidence for non-existence, if, and only if, the evidence for existence would be 'obvious' - or, at least, easily obtained, if the the something existed.

That's a logical deduction, not evidence.

 

[JohnW2]

That's a logical deduction, not evidence.

That's rather a semantic issue.

There is always a problem with 'negative evidence'. Whether you call it 'evidence' or 'a logical deduction', if something is absent, one often has no option other than to look for positive evidence of its existence, which one fails to find. There are no tests that can demonstrate that a medicine is totally devoid of harmful effects ('safe'). The best one can do is look for harmful effects and fail to find them. That is generally regarded as 'evidence of safety' (or 'evidence of absence of harmful effects'), but you could call it 'logical deduction' if you prefer.

As I said, if millions of people with (functioning) eyes have, over hundreds of years, not seen 'huge herds of unicorns' flying over Europe, then I don't think it unreasonable to regard that as 'evidence' that they do not exist - but, again, if you prefer you can call that a 'logical deduction'.

However, if those millions of people had all been blind, you then could not take the fact that they had not seen the 'huge flying herds' to be evidence of their non-existence (they might stay in the air and fly silently!).

Don't forget that we appear to be essentially 'on the same side' in this discussion!

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

Don't forget that we appear to be essentially 'on the same side' in this discussion!

I haven't.

There could be, for some people, a perfectly logical reason why the herds of flying unicorns have not been spotted over Europe - God stops the disbelievers from seeing them (just as he/she/they/it stops us from seeing the evidence for he/she/they/it's existence).

 

[JohnW2]

There could be, for some people, a perfectly logical reason why the herds of flying unicorns have not been spotted over Europe ....

I think you're rather stretching things, unnecessarily in terms of our apparently mutual view of this situation.

My point remains that, as with my medicines example, if one wants 'evidence of a negative' all one can usually do is to look as hard as one can for evidence of the corresponding 'positive' and then conclude that one has got as close as is possible (or practicably possible) to obtaining 'evidence for the negative' if one fails (despite trying) to find any evidence of the corresponding positive.

However if, as with the example that started al this, one does not really have any particularly satisfactory means of 'looking for evidence of the corresponding positive', then the absence of such positive evidence cannot really be taken to 'prove the negative' (or, indeed to 'prove' anything, other than our very limited ability to investigate the matter).

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

I think you're rather stretching things, unnecessarily in terms of our apparently mutual view of this situation.

Just reminding ourselves that trying to find evidence of the existence of deities depends on what one considers to be evidence.

Consider Snow's investigation into an outbreak of cholera in London. The association between infected families and a particular source of water led to the logical conclusion that bacteria in the water were the cause of cholera. However it was not until the bacteria responsible were isolated by Koch, and proven to cause cholera, that there was evidence.

 

[EFLImpudence]

That does not seem very promising for the future.
We cannot prove a negative so the nonsense must continue.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but no evidence of presence is.

Religion is clearly a man made method of control.

As I said, if millions of people with (functioning) eyes have, over hundreds of years, not seen 'huge herds of unicorns' flying over Europe, then I don't think it unreasonable to regard that as 'evidence' that they do not exist - but, again, if you prefer you can call that a 'logical deduction'.

Does that not apply to a deity?

 

[JohnW2]

Does that not apply to a deity?

As I've said, it does not apply to anything unless, if it did exist, the evidence for it's existence would be 'obvious' (or, at least, easily determined) either by the use of human senses alone or with the assistance of whatever technological etc. assistance is currently available.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

There is a large number of people who believe that they have seen deities, and have held conversations with them, and have seen them perform 'miracles'.

 

[JohnW2]

Consider Snow's investigation into an outbreak of cholera in London. The association between infected families and a particular source of water led to the logical conclusion that bacteria in the water were the cause of cholera.

What Snow published was a theory, based on circumstantial observations, not claimed 'facts', and there was, at that time, no evidence that anything specific (animal, vegetable or mineral) was the cause of cholera (and, as far as I am aware, the concept of bacteria as pathogens had not then come into being).

I'm therefore not really sure of your point. I can't believe there was a belief that the absence of evidence that anything specific caused cholera led people to believe that a cause did not exist! Indeed, I imagine that most people continued to believe the prior theory that "bad air" was the cause.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

There is a large number of people who believe that they have seen deities, and have held conversations with them, and have seen them perform 'miracles'.

Do you count unsubstantiated 'claims' or 'beliefs' as 'evidence'?

If just one of that large number of people could produce irrefutable hard evidence, which could be shown not to be fake, and which precluded any alternative explanations, then a very serious spanner would have thrown into much of human thinking! ... but I'm certainly not going to hold my breath

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

What Snow published was a theory, based on circumstantial observations, not claimed 'facts', and there was, at that time, no evidence that anything specific (animal, vegetable or mineral) was the cause of cholera (and, as far as I am aware, the concept of bacteria as pathogens had not then come into being).

From https://www1.udel.edu/johnmack/frec682/cholera/ "He examined water samples from various wells under a microscope, and confirmed the presence of an unknown bacterium in the Broad Street samples."

I'm therefore not really sure of your point.

Just trying to clarify the difference between evidence and deduction.

Do you count unsubstantiated 'claims' or 'beliefs' as 'evidence'?

No, I was responding to EFLI's post #54.

 

[EFLImpudence]

From the Snow article: Just amusing.

"The mystery might never have been solved except that a minister, Reverend Henry Whitehead, took on the task of proving Snow wrong. The minister contended that the outbreak was caused not by tainted water, but by God’s divine intervention. He did not find any such proof and in fact, his published report confirms Snow’s findings. Best of all, it gave Snow the probable solution to the cause of the pump’s contamination."