Skeptiod Episode Idea - Disproof

[vita10gy]

Though Skeptoid has touched on different aspects of the scientific process I think it would serve society well to explain the process in terms of disproving something.

A phrase used a few times is "The absence of evidence is not evidence." It would be cool if you explained what that means.

Science CAN'T disprove, God, the Lochness Monster, Bigfoot, UFOs, ect.

You can list a myriad of reasons why something is HIGHLY unlikely, but that isn't proof, and some people take that as either a failure of those silly scientists to explain something paranormal, or take it as proof itself.

I think a podcast explaining the process, specifically why stuff can't be DISproven, would be cool.

I have been working while listening to these podcasts so I apologize if this has been done already. (And if it has, can someone tell me which episode?)

[tsg]

Originally Posted by vita10gy

A phrase used a few times is "The absence of evidence is not evidence." It would be cool if you explained what that means.

This is a pet peeve of mine. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when evidence could reasonably be expected if the thing were present. There is no orange coffee cup on my desk. I can state that very confidently although the only evidence I have of its absence is the complete lack of any evidence of its presence. If there were one, I'd be able to see it and feel it. That I can't, providing I have tried, is evidence there isn't one there. Failing to find even a little evidence despite intensive searching is, indeed, evidence of absence. It's one thing to say your keys aren't on the coffee table if you haven't looked. It's quite another if you've looked there several times and failed to find them there every time.

Quote:

Science CAN'T disprove, God, the Lochness Monster, Bigfoot, UFOs, ect.

As far as disproving the existence of something globally, it is not possible to prove definitively, without a doubt, that something does not exist. However, at some point the failure to find any evidence of its existence despite repeated searches makes the likelihood of such a thing so low as to be indistinguishable from impossible. At some point, the probability is so close to zero that it may as well be zero.

Quote:

You can list a myriad of reasons why something is HIGHLY unlikely, but that isn't proof, and some people take that as either a failure of those silly scientists to explain something paranormal, or take it as proof itself.

It is less about being able to prove to someone else that it exists and more about what gave the believer the idea it existed in the first place. Carl Sagan's story about the invisible dragon in his neighbors garage illustrates this quite well: forget about trying to convince me it's there, what made you think it was there if you can't see it, feel it, hear it, smell it or taste it?

[vita10gy]

Ignore my rambling if it turns out to not be the case, but I don't think your mug analogy is an example of what you're talking about. The fact that there's no mug on your desk is evidence that there's no mug on your desk.

I THINK, though I may be wrong, a better analogy would be someone saying "My mug isn't on my desk, therefor it doesn't exist."

It just frames a bad analogy because you've stated the object (mug) and the boundaries (desk). Proving (if there is even such a thing) Bigfoot isn't in a certain 5 square foot area doesn't prove anything one way or the other about the existence of Bigfoot.

Really though, if you wanted to wax philosophical, have you looked for all microscopic coffee mugs? Can you even prove you and your desk exist to see and hold a mug in the first place? It's possible I'm a magic being, perhaps the FSM himself and everything and everyone I see and interact with is my imagination telling me something is there.

[tsg]

Originally Posted by vita10gy

Ignore my rambling if it turns out to not be the case, but I don't think your mug analogy is an example of what you're talking about. The fact that there's no mug on your desk is evidence that there's no mug.

The only way I can know there is no mug on my desk is my inability to find one. That is, there is no evidence there is one there. It's the old "can you hear someone not clap" bit.

Quote:

I THINK, though I may be wrong, a better analogy would be someone saying "My mug isn't on my desk, therefor it doesn't exist."

Not really. I'm just tightening up the constraints to make a point. The only difference between "there's an orange coffee cup on my desk" and "bigfoot exists" is really the area we are talking about. In the latter, the area is "the world" and it makes it harder to prove the nonexistence of the object because "the world" is a lot harder to search.

Quote:

It just frames a bad analogy because you've stated the object (mug) and the boundaries (desk). Proving (if there is even such a thing) Bigfoot isn't in a certain 5 square foot area doesn't prove anything one way or the other about the existence of Bigfoot.

If you consider that the reason people claim "bigfoot exists" is most often due to a supposed sighting or specific evidence (footprints, fur of unknown origin, etc.), it really isn't very different. It isn't necessary to prove that bigfoot doesn't exist to show that the reasons they have to believe it exists are flawed.

[vita10gy]

A good example of the misunderstanding of disproofs is the show Mythbusters. It's one of my favorite shows, and I understand that with the name Mythbusters they have to say "busted" once in a while. However, lets say you're testing a myth about a construction worker falling off a building and, because he was holding onto a sheet of plywood, gliding to safety. You can jump off the building and flutter down to earth, which confirms the myth, or you can crash down to earth, PROVING nothing. There's no way you would ever be able to recreate the one in a billion set of circumstances that may have lead to something happening.

Now, it's a television show and saying BUSTED doesn't HAVE to mean that something is categorically untrue, it may just be really really really unlikely.

[vita10gy]

Originally Posted by tsg

It isn't necessary to prove that bigfoot doesn't exist to show that the reasons they have to believe it exists are flawed.

Fair enough, but that's a different argument altogether.

[Cold one]

Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. - Carl Sagan

Basically, if the cup holds no water why try to put water in it and what does it matter if it exists or doesn't? Trying to convince me to disprove the existance of the cup simply because you have water which would fit nicely in this "imaginary" cup doesnt make the cup real or even relevant.

[tsg]

Originally Posted by vita10gy

A good example of the misunderstanding of disproofs is the show Mythbusters. It's one of my favorite shows, and I understand that with the name Mythbusters they have to say "busted" once in a while. However, lets say you're testing a myth about a construction worker falling off a building and, because he was holding onto a sheet of plywood, gliding to safety. You can jump off the building and flutter down to earth, which confirms the myth, or you can crash down to earth, PROVING nothing. There's no way you would ever be able to recreate the one in a billion set of circumstances that may have lead to something happening.

Now, it's a television show and saying BUSTED doesn't HAVE to mean that something is categorically untrue, it may just be really really really unlikely.

That is, in fact, what I think they are saying. And, to be fair, they also to quite a bit of research to see if there is any documented evidence of the thing happening. Failing to find any, and showing how very unlikely it would be goes a long way towards showing it as BUSTED. Is it absolute proof? No, but few things are. BUSTED just means the more likely (far more likely in most cases) explanation is that it was made up.

[tsg]

Originally Posted by vita10gy

Fair enough, but that's a different argument altogether.

But it's kind of the whole point behind "absence of evidence". It isn't about proving something false, it's about not being able to prove it true.

[Quath]

I think the mug on the desk is a decent enough analogy. I had a similar experience. I was looking for Dayquil in the medicine cabinet. I shuffled everything around and couldn't find it. So I told my wife. She said it was in there. So I looked again without finding any. So she gets up, goes to the cabinet and points to the dayquil. Now i was austounded that I had missed that in such a small space. It clearly stood out when she pointed it out.

That clearly demonstrated the whole "the absence of evidence is not evidence." Are you sure the mug is not on your desk? Maybe you missed it? Maybe the glare on the desktop distrated you? Maybe the mug is camoflauged?

I tend to agree with tsg that we characterize the probability until we feel it is close enough to 0 or 1 that we make some statement about "busted" or "fact." However, ultimately, we never really know.

[vita10gy]

Well close enough to 0 or 1 is good enough to call something true or false for all practical purposes, I still don't really think it counts as proving or disproving something.

Science can't prove Evolution or disprove the Lochness Monster. It can list a million reasons why Evolution is incredibly likely and list a million reasons why the Lochness Monster is incredibly unlikely. Any reasonable person can look at that and say well that's good enough proof for me, but that doesn't make it proof.

[tsg]

Originally Posted by vita10gy

Well close enough to 0 or 1 is good enough to call something true or false for all practical purposes, I still don't really think it counts as proving or disproving something.

Science can't prove Evolution or disprove the Lochness Monster. It can list a million reasons why Evolution is incredibly likely and list a million reasons why the Lochness Monster is incredibly unlikely. Any reasonable person can look at that and say well that's good enough proof for me, but that doesn't make it proof.

Well, technically, outside of mathematics the only thing you can "prove" is that you exist and you can only prove that to yourself ("cogito ergo sum"). Every other statement of fact carries the disclaimer "to the best of our knowledge".

[tsg]

Originally Posted by Quath

I think the mug on the desk is a decent enough analogy. I had a similar experience. I was looking for Dayquil in the medicine cabinet. I shuffled everything around and couldn't find it. So I told my wife. She said it was in there. So I looked again without finding any. So she gets up, goes to the cabinet and points to the dayquil. Now i was austounded that I had missed that in such a small space. It clearly stood out when she pointed it out.

That clearly demonstrated the whole "the absence of evidence is not evidence." Are you sure the mug is not on your desk? Maybe you missed it? Maybe the glare on the desktop distrated you? Maybe the mug is camoflauged?

I have done the same thing. Up to the point that my wife showed me I was wrong, I was convinced it wasn't there. The evidence that it was there convinced me I was wrong and the evidence that I had used to presume it wasn't there was attributed to not freaking opening my eyes. It happens. We are allowed to be wrong. What I am not going to do, though, is believe that everything conceivable actually exists until it can be shown otherwise. As this thread points out, you can't do that.

Quote:

I tend to agree with tsg that we characterize the probability until we feel it is close enough to 0 or 1 that we make some statement about "busted" or "fact." However, ultimately, we never really know.

To paraphrase Carl Sagan, knowledge is conditional acceptance based on the available information.

[vita10gy]

Based on the highly scientific study conducted by the 3 of us here in this thread I have concluded one of two things are true: 1) Upon marriage men loose all ability to find anything. The smaller the search space, somehow the harder the search. 2) Our wives are actually magical and the item really isn't where we were looking for it until they got there and made it so.

[tsg]

Originally Posted by vita10gy

Based on the highly scientific study conducted by the 3 of us here in this thread I have concluded one of two things are true: 1) Upon marriage men loose all ability to find anything. The smaller the search space, somehow the harder the search. 2) Our wives are actually magical and the item really isn't where we were looking for it until they got there and made it so.

I happen to know for a fact that my wife arbitrarily changes "where things go" just to confuse me.

My slippers have yet to be in the same place twice when I go to look for them.

[briandunning]

I like this idea for a show. Frankly I have minimal clue on how best to approach it.

[vita10gy]

Yeah....I don't know.

Maybe talk about the crazy things that can't be disproven, and why that is, and how it's a credit to how thorough science is, not a failing of the process.

Maybe you could likewise talk about all the things that no sane person would question, but aren't, and more importantly can't be, technically scientifically proved. (Along the "Evolution is JUST a theory" line of discussion.)

I'm not exactly sure how to approach it either. Maybe you can just hop on the "What the hell is wrong with Scientologists?" bandwagon.

[EvilEye]

The problem with the cup analogy is that you created the idea of the orange coffee cup, and THEN tried to prove that it wasn't there. This is exactly how God got started... with an unchallengeable argument.

Absence of evidence is lack of complete knowledge of the subject/object.

Evidence of absence is a folly term, like asking how short someone is. You can't ask how short someone is, because you can't know the limit.

edit to add: the word evidence implies that there is something to have evidence for.

[EvilEye]

One more quick point.

Absence of evidence may get a murderer released, but it doesn't prove they didn't do it.

[vita10gy]

Which is why we have that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. If only science worked that way in the minds of Jon Q Public.

As a tangent, I always get a "kick", for lack of a better term, out of people's responses when someone is convicted or not of a crime. If someone kills a member of someone's family and are convicted for it in the minds of the family the accused is the scum of the earth, if not they suddenly aren't. As if the conviction itself actually means they committed the crime or not.

It's like everyone involved just wants SOMEONE to go down, and it doesn't matter who.

I'm not really doing a good job of articulating what I mean, but I suspect you guys might see what I'm getting at.

(Note: If you're reading this as me accusing 'the system' of oft convicting the wrong people, you're reading it wrong.)

[EvilEye]

In court, (heck... even BEFORE) ... most people suspect the accused regardless of the outcome.

Where science comes in, is when they are exonerated based on scientific proof that it was not possible.

But most people are not of a scientific mind, and regardless of the outcome, the person set free will be "guilty" in the minds of the major portion of the population.

A little example.

Wayyyyyy back when I was in middle-school in 1981, a male Gym teacher was accused of beating a female student.

That night, his face was plastered (with the obligatory mug-shot {they tell you NOT to smile} of his face) all over the local news along with the story.

It did not matter that nothing had progressed yet.

Later, before even the first hearing, his accuser admitted to bashing her own face on a desk to cause bruises and black eyes because she was mad at him for pushing her to do better, and then used her injuries to blame him.

There was never a straight A+B=C

It was A (teacher) made her mad, and B (She wanted revenge) and C (She used A as the cause explananation for C)

But even after they told that story, most people who never saw the 10 second spot of his exoneration (as opposed to the 1 minute story of his arrest)... the man lost his job and could not be hired again. No one trusted him because the question was planted.

[Wildtime]

Even when science has physical evidence, the results aren't 100% conclusive. In the article below, a positive result of the DNA testing on a tuft of alleged "Bigfoot" hair wouldn't necessarily prove the existence of Sasquatch, but rather that it came from an 'unknown' animal--not necessarily Bigfoot.

Quote:

U of Alberta lab testing possible 'Bigfoot' hair

Updated Wed. Jul. 27 2005 9:40 AM ET

Canadian Press

EDMONTON -- The envelope containing coarse dark-brown hair arrived Monday morning at David Coltman's University of Alberta lab complete with its own wildlife export permit - clearly labelled "Sasquatch sample."

Well, we'll see, Coltman said.

"We already have a fairly high confidence that it's a bison."

But that won't stop Coltman and his associates from putting the hair, scooped off the forest floor in Teslin, Yukon, through rigorous DNA testing just in case it does come from the legendary creature.

"That," he said, "would be the most fantastic outcome."

The sample was plucked from the bush earlier this month close to where several people heard - and swear they saw - a large, dark, hairy creature late one evening. One person, on the way to the bathroom, told reporters the creature was standing in the brush and watching.

There's also a large unusual footprint. Some say it's a moose that slipped in the mud; others that it's a sasquatch.

The hair, however, will tell the tale. Although wildlife scientists in the Yukon have already examined it and pronounced it as coming from a bison - not Bigfoot - Coltman's study will be definitive.

"We do this sort of thing routinely," said the wildlife geneticist.

His usual research involves tracking wildlife bloodlines, which allow researchers to answer questions such as how freely different populations mix. He's also made discoveries about how trophy hunting of bighorn sheep actually leads to animals with smaller and smaller horns.

Although his current subject material is a little different, the methodology for the sasquatch hair will be the same as any of his other studies.

The DNA material will be separated from the rest of the hair with a chemical solution. Then, the order in which the various genes appear will be examined. That sequence will be compared with published sequences of other animals.

"If this is a bison, it will give us a 100 per cent match."

If the match is close, but not exact, molecular biology technician Corey Davis will create a diagram of all the organisms the sample DNA is closest to. If all the near-matches are also bison, or other related ungulates, the sample is also likely to be a bison.

If the hair doesn't match anything, it's from something new. Results are expected mid-week.

Coltman's team members takes the science seriously, but they're also unaware their current project may be of more interest to supermarket tabloids than scientific journals.

"David came in and said, 'Do you want to do a little project that'll break your summer up?' " said Davis, who delayed his holidays to do the sasquatch study.

"I told him I'd only do it for giggles."

For Coltman, it's a chance to get science into the popular press - and have a little fun.

He's also aware that even a negative finding won't dissuade the true believers.

"That only goes so far in convincing some people," he said.

He's even prepared to accept that his results may not be the final word on what those folks in Teslin actually saw.

"Even if (the hair) matches a bison, it doesn't mean they didn't see a Bigfoot.

"They just picked up the hair of a bison."

P.S. - It turned out to be bison hair.

[EvilEye]

There is no such thing as disproof.

Either you have evidence that can be tested or you have nothing.

[FreeRomanian]

ha?

[Mrs.Sherman]

If you don't have evidence that can be tested, but you do have nothing, then does that allow for statistical analysis of the nothing? Does scientific testing extend to include mathematics? Maybe statistical proofs could be presented as one type of evidence. Maybe statistics aren't sufficient to prove a belief, but they could add support to a suspicion.

I suspect a bunch of things, but I don't believe much.