Each square is then slowly and meticulously exposed, and an attempt is made to extract and record every single artefact; techniques like sieving and flotation are sometimes used for better recovery. Let p be the likelihood that an adequate trace exists in the site, assuming it was indeed inhabited. Because of the strong human footprint and the good survivability of many types of human material remains, discussed in the previous section, a site that was inhabited by humans for an appreciable time is expected to contain many human artefacts.
Let q be the likelihood that a stray trace from the same period exists in the site even though the site was not inhabited during the period in question. Following Sober , 71 8n and Strevens , p. Footnote 19 The higher the ratio, the safer the inference. Under such circumstances, the likelihood ratio for any value of q is a little greater than one. For an orderly archaeological excavation, however, the probability of detecting a trace, if such exists in the site, is significant because such traces are easily distinguishable and the search is localised and intensive.
Under such circumstances, inference from absence cannot be discarded as inconclusive but must be considered as any other empirical inference. McGrew , p. Before going further, it is worth recapping what was shown so far: Models Sober, ; McGrew, created to demonstrate that inference from absence of historical traces is weak and inconclusive, show that under conditions typical to archaeological excavations such inference can have a respectable plausibility.
Strevens , commenting on Sober, offers an alternative analysis: The absence of evidence is typically not epistemically objective evidence of absence, and therefore unacceptable in scientific reasoning. The more their values depend on the probabilities of auxiliary hypotheses, which different scientists may asses differently, the less objective they are. Strevens observes that evaluating the likelihood of a separate ancestry of two lineages from the failure to find an intermediate fossil involves making a lot of assumptions about the past geographical distribution of all possible intermediate species and their chances of fossilisation and preservation.
As explained above, we are concerned with situations in which the probability of discovering a trace if such exists is high and the probability of the existence of traces given past inhabitation is very high. Surface foot-walking survey is another method of archaeological research for discovering and identifying traces of past human settlements. Here, however, the probability of detection is usually lower. This indicates that Inference from absence from a single survey sweep is not well supported.
Appropriately, Banning , pp. It was assumed above that that if a site was occupied in the period of interest, the probability of human material remains being there is unity. This approximation is adequate for mundane artefacts, such as sherds of domestic vessels, which should be present in great quantity if the site was inhabited for an appreciable time.
How certain can we be, finding a single rare trace, that the site was occupied in the relevant period? The support for both a positive inference given a find and for a negative inference after none was found is smaller than when traces are very abundant, and p practically equals one.
The probability of encountering remains from these pre-domestication phenomena cannot be assumed to be negligible. Footnote 23 This simple reasoning explains why Fuller, Ben Yosef and Hen-Sapir, and many other archaeologists often treat paucity of evidence as practical absence, drawing an inference from absence thereof. If we demand that the number of relevant traces found exceeds a specified minimum then the likelihoods, expressed in cumulative distributions and their complementary functions, will be too complicated to capture in the simple formalism used here.
This can result in a false negative inference. At the risk of stating the obvious, let me stress that even under the best conditions inference from absence will just be an abductive empirical inference , and as such defeasible by future evidence or analysis.
In particular, one must be aware that the justification for inference from absence, as outlined above, is essentially local since it rests on the failure to find sought-after evidence in an intensive localised search.
Footnote 24 A generalisation from the local to the global—from the excavated area to the whole site, from several sites to a territorial unit or worldwide—constitutes, logically speaking, an additional inference that needs to be examined in itself and can be called into question by findings from other localities.
Recent discoveries Goebel et al. Similarly, evidence for extinction of the ammonites before the Cretaceous—Paleogene boundary, gathered from one locality, was overturned by results from other places. Ward, , p. There are also some questions of interest to archaeologists in which such inference would of be limited applicability, or entirely unwarranted. Below are several salient examples:. Organic materials , being degradable, cannot be assumed to leave the strong footprint necessary for inference from absence.
Many artefacts of biological and botanical origin e. The Archaeology of Nomads : Due to their high mobility, low population density, and transient camping, nomads are often difficult to identify archaeologically. As Finkelstein and Perevolotsky write:. The nature of nomadism accounts for the dearth of material remains. Moreover, their limited resources do not facilitate the creation of a flourishing material culture that could leave rich archaeological finds.
As Smith reports:. Extensive surveys for Kohe sites have been carried out, even in areas that they were reported in historical literature … but none have been found. Apparently, not much can be adduced from not finding traces under such circumstances, and inference from absence cannot be justified.
Questions of identity : The ethnic or social identity of past people is often not distinguishable in their material remains. This hypothesis is supported by distinctive names mentioned in cuneiform tablets unearthed in Palestine and Egypt, but by only a few, if any, material remains. Similarly, the lack of pig remains in some locations of Iron-Age Palestine was interpreted as an indication of an Israelite population but is now considered insufficient to support such an inference Hesse and Wapnish, ; Sapir-Hen et al.
For example, while grave goods are typically interpreted as an indication of a belief in the afterlife, their absence e. The list above is not meant to be exhaustive. For Inference from absence to be plausible, the expectancy of finding evidence assuming the existence of the searched-for phenomenon should be high.
As shown above, the combination of abundance, survivability over the relevant time-scale and distinctiveness of many types of human material artefacts can create favourable circumstances for archaeological inference from absence. Looking for similar situations in other historical sciences, two potential categories can be outlined:. If no traces of flowering plants were found in Devonian sediments worldwide, probably none existed then. For more precise and detailed questions, undisturbed—or only lightly disturbed—assemblages of abundant traces may be our best candidates of inference from absence.
For example, Ward , discussing the problem of determining extinction dates from the fossils record, noted that:. The documented ranges of small, common, and readily collected species are going to be closer to their actual ranges than are the observed ranges of rarer species.
A corollary of this is that rarer species will require far more effort in collection than will the more common species if reliable range charts are to be determined.
Forber and Griffith , p. In historiography, inference from absence based on intact archives, especially ones of mundane bureaucratic records, can have a decent plausibility. Similar situations can be sought in other historical sciences. It is a demonstrable fact that inference and reasoning from absence are common in archaeology, often enjoying a status on par with other empirical inferences.
Archaeologists are usually not aware that this practice is at variance with other scientific disciplines. Our purpose here was to examine if, or under what conditions, this practice can be epistemically justified. The analysis presented above showed that the strong footprint that characterised human communities since early prehistory, combined with the high survivability and distinguishability of many human artefacts, can create situations where archaeologists can reasonably expect to find evidence of past human presence if such existed.
Under such circumstances, inference from absence is plausible. When combined with midrange theories like typology and stratigraphy that connect archaeological traces to the time and circumstances of their creation, such negative inferences can factor in the reconstruction of human history no less than positive inference from tangible traces.
The examples and discussion above show that such circumstances obtain in common and important parts of archaeological work. In other sciences, similar situations are rare, though not inconceivable. The analysis offered here can point to potential candidates. There are, however, several types of archaeological research questions in which inference from absence is problematic or totally unwarranted because the conditions required to justify it are not met.
And even when the archaeological inference from absence is reasonably secure, the generalisation from local absence to global inference must be justified separately. Archaeologists, as well as historiographers who reason from their results, must be cognizant of both the justification and the limitations of archaeological inference from absence.
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. Inference from absence should not be confused with eliminative inference. In the latter, intransigent results—either positive or negative—that cannot be explained by available hypotheses, motivate the formulation of a novel one. Unlike inference from absence, instances of eliminative inference appear in all sciences cf.
A secondary argument was the absence of Egyptian-style pottery from strata in Philistine settlements. Tucker offers a context-dependent analysis and Currie , stresses the possibilities of reasoning about the past that do not involve direct inference from traces.
Carrier , p. For instance, two detailed reports on the eruption of the Vesuvius, written by Pliny the Younger for Tacitus, do not mention the destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum. McGrew has more examples. That is, did not exist when they could have existed. Compare this to McGrew , p. Interestingly, Stephens mentioned archaeology as a discipline that makes use of arguments from absence.
He does not elaborate, however, nor gives any specific examples. This follows simply from the mathematical truism that if evidence is more likely under a particular hypothesis than under its negation, than the opposite is true for the lack of such evidence Strevens, , p.
The approximation is reasonable, however, under most circumstances, and modifying it would complicate the analysis without changing the qualitative result. The appropriate measure for the degree of confirmation of hypotheses by evidence is a matter of debate Eells and Fitelson, ; Sober, , pp. I believe that, at least for the situations discussed below, the likelihoodist framework is the most useful.
This is something on which all the sources cited above agree. Strevens shows pp. Search strategies developed to increase the probability of detection such as repeated sweeps, crew selection, and training enhance probability of detection and with it the security of inference from absence. Cleland , p. Sober , p. John Hopkins Press, Baltimore. Google Scholar. Eisenbrauns, University Park, Pennsylvania. Br Med J Banning EB Archaeological survey. Book Google Scholar. J Archaeol Method Theory 24 2 — Barnard H, Wendrich W The archaeology of mobility.
Barnes AS The differences between natural and human flaking on prehistoric flint implements. Am Anthropol 41 1 — Article Google Scholar. Quat Int 75 1 — Curr Anthropol 52 S4 :S—S Blackwell, Malden. Ben-Tor A Do the execration texts reflect an accurate picture of the contemporary settlement map of Palestine? Eisenbrauns, University Park, Pennsylvania, pp. Bull Am Sch Orient Res — J Biblic Lit 87 3 — Prometheus Books, Amherst. Routledge and K. Paul, London. Chapman R, Wylie A Evidential reasoning in archaeology.
Bloomsbury Publishing, London. Cleland CE Methodological and epistemic differences between historical science and experimental science. Philos Sci 69 3 — Cleland CE Prediction and explanation in historical natural science. Br J Philos Sci 62 3 — Cleland CE Common cause explanation and the search for a smoking gun. Clealand CE Traces from the past—Drumlins.
Mon Not R Astron Soc 1 — Copi IM Introduction to logic. Macmillan, New York. We could talk until we're blue in the face about this quiz on words for the color "blue," but we think you should take the quiz and find out if you're a whiz at these colorful terms. See absent , -ia. Words related to absence dearth , deficiency , drought , lack , omission , absenteeism , cut , hooky , nonappearance , nonattendance , truancy , vacancy , inadequacy , insufficiency , need , privation , unavailability , void , want.
How to use absence in a sentence Suspensions lead to more absence s, as students become disconnected from the school. Are Black Students Unruly? Or is America Just Racist? Dorothy at Skyrie Evelyn Raymond. History Of Friedrich II. Thomas Carlyle. They want to believe that X is true or that X exists and to believe it without evidence or even against evidence to the contrary. They want to have their beliefs remain intact and not subject to refutation or to reexamination for fear of needing to alter their beliefs.
Such behavior is within the realm of Religion and not at all acceptable amongst those who would pursue Philosophical discourse or who would ask that reason and evidence support claims.
Additional readings concerning the difficulty of proving a general negative claim. Premise: If there is a fire burning in room , then you have Oxygen present in room Premise: There is no oxygen in room Conclusion: Therefore, there is no fire burning in room If Premises 1 and 2 are true the conclusion must be true.
Are they true? If so, then the conclusion is true. As a fire is rapid oxidation the absence of oxygen makes a fire impossible. Premise: F then O is making the claim that the O is necessary for the F. It claims the F is sufficient to know there is the O. It is a mistake to confuse a necessary for a sufficient condition and to argue this way. Nevertheless a good deal of thinking preceded with this pattern in science. If the Hypothesis is correct then we will observe what the hypothesis would predict.
We do observe what was predicted and the conclusion is at least partially supported that the hypothesis is correct. Permise: If H, then O Premise: O Conclusion: H Science moves forward with greater degree of probability of the conclusion being true through the use of modus tollens which disproves an hypothesis or refutes a claim: Permise: If H, then O Premise: not O Conclusion: not H But even then there might have been something not quite correct in the hypothesis or some auxiliary hypothesis or assumption being made that is being disproven and nto the hypothesis.
Perhaps there was the assumption that the measuring being done would be accurate or the devices being used would all function properly and so on. More testing of the hypothesis is generally in order to rule out the other explanations for not detecting the predicted result.
The logic of proving a negative or non-existence of some X. This pattern is VALID and now what a person would need to check is whether or not the premises are true.
Not ever making those observations despite numerous attempts would lead most humans to conclude that there is no Tooth Fairy or Easter Bunny or Santa Claus , only persons posing as such. However, if the X is some supernatural being or spirit such as a deity or a ghost or even an event claimed to have a supernatural source those who wish to hold for the existence of such beings are not so willing to accept that the existence of the being in reality is disproven and that the being does not exist in reality.
What happens? This would be a VALID argument pattern so if the premises are true the conclusion would be proven to be true. Example: Premise: If yellow monkeys in the jungle J exist, then you will observe the yellow monkeys in jungle J Premise: No observation of yellow monkeys in the jungle J occurs Conclusion : There are no yellow monkeys in the jungle J This would be a VALID argument pattern so if the premises are true the conclusion would be proven to be true.
HOWEVER, those who want to hold to the existence of yellow monkeys in the jungle J will introduce auxiliary claims so that the failure to obverse O does not disprove the existence of yellow monkeys in the jungle J. Premise: If yellow monkeys in the jungle J exist and it is a rainy Tuesday, then you will observe the yellow monkeys in jungle J Premise: No observation of yellow monkeys in the jungle J occurs on rainy Tuesdays when observations are carried out. Conclusion : There are no yellow monkeys in the jungle J That would appear to disprove the existence of the yellow monkeys in the jungle J except that the believer in the yellow monkeys in jungle J can offer another auxiliary hypothesis or claim.
Premise: If yellow monkeys in the jungle J exist and it is a rainy Tuesday and they want you to see them, then you will observe the yellow monkeys in jungle J Premise: No observation of yellow monkeys in the jungle J occurs Conclusion : There are no yellow monkeys in the jungle J and it is a rainy Tuesday that want you to see them.
So the person who wants to believe in yellow monkeys in the jungle J exist can continue to believe in them and claim that they do exist even with no evidence to support the claim. The person who wants to believe in yellow monkeys in the jungle J exist will claim that you did not prove that there were no yellow monkeys in the jungle J and so the person can go on believing that there are yellow monkeys in the jungle.
Now substitute a supernatural being of any kind into the position held by the yellow monkeys in jungle J in the arguments above and you should be able to understand why it is so difficult to prove a negative claim.
Person B claims that deity D exists. Person B does not offer any convincing arguments or evidence or proof that D exists but shifts the burden of proof and claims that D exists unless it can be proven that D does not exist. An attempt to prove that D does not exist might take this form. Let O be the observation of the deity itself. Now the person who claims that D does exist can alter the position in this manner:. So by introducing features into the initial premise the attempt to disprove the existence of D is thwarted.
All manner of post hoc explanations can be offered to explain what was observed. For example the claim could be made that deity D wants people to accept the existence of D as an act of faith in D and so does not make the existence of D obvious or observable.
This process can be repeated in many different ways. This makes the attempt to disprove the existence of D very difficult if not impossible. Thus it is that the claim is made that it is difficult if not impossible to prove a negative claim or the non-existence of something. The Burden of Proof is on the positive claim. This stands to reason. This makes sense. This placement of the Burden of Proof makes reasoned discourse possible.
The argument to disprove the existence of D might take this form:. Well this would not prove that there is no deity only that D, a deity that is claimed to be All Good and All Knowledgeable and All Powerful, does not exist. Now the person who claims that there is a deity can now remove on of the three properties and the disproof would no longer be applicable or deny the truth of premise 1. So the Burden of Proof rests with the person making the claim and a positive claim.
It is shifting the Burden of Proof for the person making the positive claim to insist that those who deny the positive claim have the burden to prove that the positive claim is false. It is the Fallacy or mistake of appealing to ignorance to reach a conclusion based on lack of knowledge such as with taking the position that :.
If you can not prove that X does not exists, then X does exist. If you can not prove that X is false, then X is true. Absence of evidence is not Evidence of absence. There is the mistake of thinking that there are only two alternatives of a false dilemma:. There is a valid pattern:. The mistake is making it appear that the valid pattern is being used when it is not because the first premise of the valid pattern is NOT TRUE.
Should be. What conclusion would follow from this?
0コメント