Philosophical Studies

, Volume 143, Issue 1, pp 63–90 | Cite as

Absence of evidence and evidence of absence: evidential transitivity in connection with fossils, fishing, fine-tuning, and firing squads

Article

Abstract

“Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence” is a slogan that is popular among scientists and nonscientists alike. This article assesses its truth by using a probabilistic tool, the Law of Likelihood. Qualitative questions (“Is E evidence about H?”) and quantitative questions (“How much evidence does E provide about H?”) are both considered. The article discusses the example of fossil intermediates. If finding a fossil that is phenotypically intermediate between two extant species provides evidence that those species have a common ancestor, does failing to find such a fossil constitute evidence that there was no common ancestor? Or should the failure merely be chalked up to the imperfection of the fossil record? The transitivity of the evidence relation in simple causal chains provides a broader context, which leads to discussion of the fine-tuning argument, the anthropic principle, and observation selection effects.

Keywords

Anthropic principle Bayesianism Common ancestry Evidence Fine-tuning Fossils Likelihood 

References

  1. Berofsky, B. (1971). Determinism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bradley, D. (2007). Bayesianism and self-locating beliefs, or Tom Bayes meets John Perry. Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  3. Carroll, S. (2005). Endless forms most beautiful—the new science of Evo Devo. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  4. Carter, B. (1974). Large number coincidences and the anthropic principle in cosmology. In M. S. Longair (Ed.), Confrontation of cosmological theories with observational data (pp. 291–298). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  5. Colyvan, M., Garfield, J., & Priest, G. (2005). Problems with the argument from fine-tuning. Synthese, 145, 325–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species. London: Murray.Google Scholar
  7. Earman, J. (1986). A primer on determinism. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  8. Earman, J. (1992). Bayes or bust—a critical examination of Bayesian Confirmation Theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Eddington, A. (1939). The philosophy of physical science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Edwards, A. (1972). Likelihood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Eells, E. (1982). Rational decision and causality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Fitelson, B. (1999). The plurality of Bayesian measures of confirmation and the problem of measure sensitivity. Philosophy of Science, 66, S362–S378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hacking, I. (1965). The logic of statistical inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Leslie, J. (1989). Universes. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. McMullin, E. (1993). Indifference principle and anthropic principle in cosmology. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 24, 359–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Royall, R. (1997). Statistical evidence—a likelihood paradigm. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  17. Sagan, C. (1997). The demon haunted world—science as a candle in the dark. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  18. Simpson, E. H. (1951). The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 13, 238–241.Google Scholar
  19. Sober, E. (2004). The design argument. In W. Mann (Ed.), The Blackwell guide to philosophy of religion (pp. 117–147). New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Sober, E. (2008). Evidence and evolution—the logic behind the science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Walton, D. (1996). Arguments from ignorance. University Park, PA: Penn State Press.Google Scholar
  22. Weisberg, J. (2005). Firing squads and fine tuning—Sober on the design argument. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 56, 809–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentUniversity of Wisconsin, MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations