Michael Shermer – Negative Evidence in “The Baloney Detection Kit”
What I really liked about this video by Shermer is the idea of ‘negative evidence’ which in fact this should have been included in my earlier post: The common defences used by superstitions. It comes up so much and I think it helps to explain why people do actually defend ideas when there is no evidence to support it. In short negative evidence is the idea that there is no evidence so therefore it must be true or in other words something can only be true through further assumptions. Such as in 9/11 conspiracy theories it’s only negative evidence that is ever given, in essence it’s the details of how it could not have been a bunch of pissed off Muslims. I have come across at least three different 9/11 conspiracy theories while each of them are produced as if it were the true account of what happened none of them offer positive evidence. Like how buildings have been on fire for hours and never collapsed before, this is negative evidence because it is not a test of what happened to the twin towers rather it saying these building were on fire and they did not collapse. This does not say anything about the collapse of the twin towers.
Even thinking about it you can see the difference between those buildings that have been on fire and never collapsed and the twin towers. The twin towers were not just on fire, they were much taller and the fact that planes of that size would of have to at least fly at 180 mph would make some difference, so logic would have to say that the negative evidence in this case is not all that useful. Shermer does not use this as an example but he does talk about ideologies; to argue that if someone thinks an event or phenomena happened what tends to happen is we look for the ways of explaining it. What really needs to be done is you go back to the data and see what it is telling you rather than trying to support something which you think is true. There might be gaps which cannot be explained but this not knowing should never be the formation of a new knowing because it ignores what we already know.
Overall I think this is a very nice video and useful to anyone interested in this subject.
image from: www.michaelshermer.com
Negative evidence: In Schermer’s explanation of the Pyramids, he demonstrates the usefulness of what I consider to be “negative evidence” (casting doubt on a thesis by demonstrating that something that should have occurred or should have been there if the thesis is true, simply did not occur). When he asks if people other than Egyptians built the Pyramids, we should be able to find some evidence/artifacts of theirs, but we don’t, to me, he is utilizing “negative evidence”. Although this doesn’t entirely disprove the theory that the Egptians didn’t build the Pyramids and that someone else did, it does make you wonder about the validity if the thesis.
Point 5, I believe, where Shermer discusses counterarguments to a new theory is the same thing I learned in college. My English teaching called it “writing defensively”, that is, anticipating the readers’ questions and answering them. Best advice I ever got.
One of the best examples is the “Recapitulation” chapter in Darwin’s “Origin of Species.” Well aware of the jolts his book is going to send through the scientific community, he carefully considers each point, and where he is unsure of something, admits it, cautiously makes suggestions, and in general makes the case for evolution, while at the same time taking care of any counter-arguments that might be made against it.
Oh, and BTW: although cold fusion may have been unproven in 1989, there are others today that think it is possible and are working on it. Well, I’m from Missouri….
I liked it. So much useful material. I read with great interest.
I don’t think that Schermer uses negative evidence in that manner, he is saying that there should be some sort of evidence to suggest that the pyramids were built by someone else. What we do find is positive evidence, the camps of the Egyptians around the pyramids. What negative evidence means is we have a theory and because we cannot disprove it with evidence therefore it should stand. Very much like ‘Gods of the gaps’ in Dawkin’s word- just because we don’t know does not prove anything which is what negative evidence is.
ADMIN: I call it “negative evidence”; I do not know what you and others call it. When people say (and they do): “So-and-so is a genius; he proved that mainstream science is wrong, and that meat and fat are good for you, and fruit and vegetables are bad…”, I immediately raise the point that if this were true, that this person was right and everybody else was wrong, wouldn’t I have heard about it? Maybe they would have been given Nobel prizes? And the countless other consequences that would have followed their monumental discovery?
The fact that none of this happened is strong circumstantial evidence that something is wrong. I call that “negative evidence”, and while it does not totally invalidate a claim, it throws a harsh light on it and leaves one wondering. It is related to not writing defensively, not considering alternative explanations, selective reasoning, and too many graduates from the University of Google who can’t evaluate the facts they gather.
When I hear a wild claim, I always look for negative evidence, e.g., UFO’s (aliens, I suppose)…if there are so many of them around, and they have come billions of miles over eons of time, why the hell don’t they land? With all the cell phone cameras around, why don’t we have better pictures? I never hear about alien abductions anymore…WHY? Did they get bored with us? I never see any UFO’s, I have never been abducted…what, do I have alien b.o.?
“People believe what they want to believe.” People who want to believe in UFO’s will see them. Period. Not rocket science.=)