| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, John Jackson wrote: > Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 14:03:43 -0800 (PST) > From: John Jackson <strangetruther@yahoo.com> > Reply-To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk > To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk > Subject: Re: paleonet Homo sapiens / H. erectus introgression > > > and absence of evidence is not > > evidence of absence. > > K.Burton > ( ... ) > > As for Popper, far be it from me to warn against him, > indeed I celebrate him here... > > http://www.geocities.com/strangetruther/pottedpopper.html > , > > ...but perhaps crystalised Popper is enough: > > Evidence is NOT observation(s) "somewhat" compatible > with one theory, but observation(s) better predicted > or explained by one theory than another. > Interpreting the first lines of K. Burton I would deduce for a well-known example: Internationally recognized and confirmed by a US governmental panel there is no evidence for weapons of mass-destructions in Iraq. (= there is absence of evidence). Above is however not evidence of absence as: An already ready-made nuclear bomb might still be lying under the rose-flowers of a kindergarten (4 m depth) in some village somewhere in Iraq. This applies of course to any other contry in the world as well, including California, Mexico, Monaco and San Marino, formulated with a polite smile). Only if a technology exists that, for example airborne, scans the whole country with a sufficient resolution sufficiently deep one can be sure that there are no such things (applies of course also for any old cargo-ship / sailing-yacht approaching Washington). (= then we have evidence of absence, until that: Good hope). Thus for safety the initial statement bears, according to my view, much more relevance to daily life than often considered: Most car accidents by the way would not happen, if people would drive accordingly (= between the reach of visibility, e.g. where doubt begins, always the reasonably worst has to be assumed such as an approaching car-driver having had a heart attack or being alcoholized until through measurement (visible data) it is falsified). An interpretation (absence of evidence) pulling for example large shallow water reefs in the subboreal Pliocene North Atlantic (absence of evidence) I would for example not consider to be realistic. Thus I think above "safety-principle", as K. Burton pointed out, should only be violated in extreme cases with utmost care (for example if tentatively, in the form of a hypothesis, time-series are bridged accross unconformities with the help of neural-network programs, consistency tests with wells around these points). > > > Cordially, > > JJ > > http://www.geocities.com/strangetruther/picphilos1.html > Best regards, Peter ********************************************************************** Dr. Peter P. Smolka University Muenster Geological Institute Corrensstr. 24 D-48149 Muenster Tel.: +49/251/833-3989 +49/2533/4401 Fax: +49/251/833-3989 +49/2533/4401 E-Mail: smolka@uni-muenster.de E-Mail: PSmolka@T-Online.de **********************************************************************
Partial index: