Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Tuesday, February 16 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1305
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:51:02 -0800
From: Brian D Harper <bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: Cambrian Explosion
At 11:15 AM 2/16/99 +1030, Mark wrote:
>When you say "absence of evidence can never be evidence of absence", I
>think the key is what exactly is meant by "absence of evidence". In
>its purest sense: absence of evidence for or against a proposition,
>you are completely right. But that is not the sense meant when
>talking about a pre-Cambrian fossil search. Here "absence of
>evidence" means "a search has failed to produce any pre-Cambrian
>fossils". As I will expand upon below, in this sense, "absence of
>evidence" can produce evidence of absence.
>
I thought I would throw my two cents on this, hope you
don't mind :). This insistence by some that absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence has always bugged me
since, for one thing, it seems totally contrary to the
way science normally works. If someone proposes a theory
it is natural to ask that person what the evidence is for
that theory. But if absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence then what, pray tell, is the purpose of such a
question? Suppose that: (a) there is an absence of evidence
that I robbed Fred's Bank on High Street yesterday and
(b) there is an absence of evidence that Fred's Bank on
High Street was robbed by anyone yesterday. Should this
absence of evidence be considered evidence that I did not rob
Fred's Bank on High Street yesterday? Or, more in context,
does the absence of evidence for a global flood indicate
evidence that such a flood never occurred?
Yes, there are exceptions of course. Primary seems to be
pointing to a lack of evidence where there are good reasons
to say that no evidence of this type should be found. Whether
this applies wrt pre-Cambrian fossils I can't say. Perhaps.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"He who establishes his arguments
by noise and command shows that
reason is weak" -- Montaigne
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 16:21:49 +1030
From: Mark Phillips <mark@ist.flinders.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Where is evolutionary theory?
> Pim: Does this explain why Philip Johnson is so succesful in the
> field if ID ?
Forgive my ignorance, but what does "ID" stand for? Intelligent
Design perhaps?
Cheers,
Mark.
_/~~~~~~~~\___/~~~~~~\____________________________________________________
____/~~\_____/~~\__/~~\__________________________Mark_Phillips____________
____/~~\_____/~~\________________________________mark@ist.flinders.edu.au_
____/~~\HE___/~~\__/~~\APTAIN_____________________________________________
____/~~\______/~~~~~~\____________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
"They told me I was gullible ... and I believed them!"
------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1305
********************************