cRPG obituaries

[Leshma]

We are here for five years or more and seems many of us will stay for another twenty. Therefore, I would like to ask you folks in case you personally know a member of these forums who died to post his obituary in here so we can pay him respect.

[pogosan]

[Casul]

my real life.

[Clockworkkiller]

Melee Battlegrounds

[Havelle]

http://forum.melee.org/general-discussion/commodore-axephante-feasts-in-valhalla-now/

http://scatterevan.com/

[Xant]

The saying "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is hogwash.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Weak evidence in some cases, strong evidence in some cases, but it is always evidence.

[Utrakil]

The saying "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is hogwash.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Weak evidence in some cases, strong evidence in some cases, but it is always evidence.

[No]

[Xant]

Accordingly, then, I humbly submit to the assembled multitudes, for consideration, the hypothesis that Bjord, much like the mod, is dead.

[pogosan]

[Xant]

Example:

You may not see the cancer (absence of evidence), but it doesn't mean you don't have it. To know for sure you need to dig deeper and go to doctor.

What do you think that is an example of? The hogwash part or the latter part?

[pogosan]

[Xant]

That "hogwash" is true and I provided an example confirming it.

I thought as much, which is interesting because the example provided is actually proof that it is hogwash.

Suppose that you have two people, one with visible cancer lumps, and one without. Who is more likely to have cancer?

--

This is, of course, assuming that when you say ""hogwash" is true" you mean "The thing that Xant claimed to be hogwash is not hogwash, it is true" instead of "calling it hogwash is right, because it is hogwash."

[pogosan]

[Xant]

Using your theory:
 
You assume that the one without lumps doesn't have a cancer since there's no presence of lumps.

I assume he may have a cancer since there's no evidence that he's healthy.


I can provide a real example of how scientists think:

It's been confirmed that there was water on Mars, therefore scientists assume organics are still there (yet they haven't found anything).

No.

First and foremost, you are missing the rather important distinction between evidence and proof.

I am not assuming one without lumps has no cancer. The person without lumps is simply less likely to have cancer than one with lumps. Hence: it is evidence. I don't know how often cancer manifests itself in lumps compared to not, thus I don't know the precise amount by which to adjust the probability downward, but downward it goes.

Suppose you have ten thousand possible worlds. One person, again, has lumps. The other does not. The amount of worlds in which the former has cancer is considerably greater than the amount of worlds where the latter has cancer. Thus: if there is no outward evidence of cancer, it is evidence that the person does not have cancer. That doesn't mean they shouldn't visit a doctor to make sure. It's evidence, not proof.

[Umbra]

No.

First and foremost, you are missing the rather important distinction between evidence and proof.

I am not assuming one without lumps has no cancer. The person without lumps is simply less likely to have cancer than one with lumps. Hence: it is evidence. I don't know how often cancer manifests itself in lumps compared to not, thus I don't know the precise amount by which to adjust the probability downward, but downward it goes.

Suppose you have ten thousand possible worlds. One person, again, has lumps. The other does not. The amount of worlds in which the former has cancer is considerably greater than the amount of worlds where the latter has cancer. Thus: if there is no outward evidence of cancer, it is evidence that the person does not have cancer. That doesn't mean they shouldn't visit a doctor to make sure. It's evidence, not proof.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login