I already know what it means but lets see if ya'll get it. In the world the abscence of evidence is not the evidence of abscence because in the world there are data types that are know knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns.
2007-05-31 21:32:16 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Basically, this just means that just because you can't find proof of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The lack of evidence of something existing doesn't imply that the thing does not exist. This is because there are certain things that we know that we know (know knowns), certain things that we know that we do not know (known unknowns), and certain things that we, in our ignorance, do not even know that we don't know them. It is because of this last body of unknowns that proves the above statement. The evidence for which we search may not be the right type, and if we are ignorant of the evidence, we will overlook it and think that there is no evidence (meaning that it probably doesn't exist), simply because we're looking in the wrong place in the wrong manner.
2007-05-31 21:50:04 · answer #1 · answered by mekozina 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In the world the abscence of evidence is not the evidence of abscence = You can't use the lack of proof of something as prove that it doesn't exist
know knowns = A question that you know the answer to, and are aware that you know the answer.
known unknowns = A question that you don't know the answer to, but you are aware that you don't know it.
unknown unknowns = A question that you don't know the answer to, and in fact didn't even know about the question in the first place.
As far as an interpertation??
Sounds to me like you're talkin about God, and refuting the argument that many people use which states that "there is no proof of the existance of a god, so the mere fact that you can't prove it exists must mean that it doesn't exist".
To me it seems you're saying that maybe you can't prove the existance of god because you don't even know what evidence to look for in the first place.
Of course I could be way off on the whole "God" thing, but the same argument can be used in many instances. God just springs to mind as one of those big questions that people are always arguing about.
That anywhere near the mark?
2007-06-01 05:19:32 · answer #2 · answered by mike p 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
THE KEY: In the world
abscence of evidence - no proof
((not)) the evidence of abscence -there is no proof (there is none)
((KEY)) in the world
there are data types: people.....
know knowns: those that know they know
known unknowns: those that know they don't know
unknown unknowns - those that dont know they don't know.
In the world, that is no proof that there is not proof. Yet, there are those that know they know this, there are those that know they don't know this, and there are those that don't know that they don't know this.......
Key is: in the world.....
Outside of this world, there is no evidence that anything exists..... Yet, there is no evidence that there isn't....
Your sister,
Ginger
2007-06-01 07:03:45 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Okay i Know that you know that you are 100% B.S :-( because your whole game is a contridiction. Your words: "abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence
only thing i get out of it is that... there are no popular people (know knowns)
popular people who got popular because they were probly rich but there wealth or popular stats went down so there not popular anymore. For instance MC Hammer......LOL
(known unknowns)
and people who we have yet to see become popular but there not popular yet because they are not rich or known or like MC Hammer known unknown
(unknown unknowns)
2007-06-01 04:59:00 · answer #4 · answered by PacMan 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absence of evidence means there is no evidence
Evidence of absence means Some one is not present and there is evidence of the absence.
What about unknown knows?
2007-06-01 06:54:39 · answer #5 · answered by Open_Mind 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just because something doesn't have evidence doesn't mean it's necessarily non-existent.
In this world, there are things we know, things we understand we don't know, and things we have yet to encounter.
2007-06-01 04:42:03 · answer #6 · answered by Skye 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It means that you are never seeing the whole picture, and even the part that you think you understand could be a mistake.
Love and blessings Don
2007-06-01 06:10:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It seems like whoever wrote this was leaning towards "there's an explanation for everything", we just don't know what all of them are right now
2007-06-01 05:24:00 · answer #8 · answered by Mike M 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What? Sounds like convoluted mumbo-jumbo!
2007-06-01 04:37:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It means you are trying to sound important.
2007-06-01 07:02:17 · answer #10 · answered by Wizard 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋