Rorty - No Mind-Independent Reality

[Skepdick]

That's not what you were asking, by the way. Obviously I have a belief that if something exists there's going to be evidence for it.

It is what I was asking. And now that you have re-worded the problem. I'll re-word my question.

Notice that you are still using "IF" and leaving half of the conditional out of the equation.

IF something exists there's going to be evidence for it.
IF something doesn't exist there's not going to be evidence for it.

But you said: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

So you are searching (and not finding) a needle. The available evidence (none whatsoever) justifies (so far) the non-existence of a needle.
If all the available evidence justifies not-P, what evidence do you currently have that justifies "there WILL be evidence for the existence of P"?

As with the needle, is it possible that that's not the case? Yes. But possibility isn't sufficient for belief in my opinion. There need to be reasons that I feel are good reasons to believe something beyond possibility.

Anything is possible.

Great. Tell us what those reasons are.

You have evidence for not-P, but you are looking for evidence for P.

[Terrapin Station]

what evidence do you currently have that justifies "there WILL be evidence for the existence of P"?

The lack of anything I consider a good reason to believe that there won't be evidence for the existence of P.

[Terrapin Station]

IF something exists there's going to be evidence for it.
IF something doesn't exist there's not going to be evidence for it.

Re that, by the way, because I believe that if something exists there's going to be evidence for it, if we check the available evidence and there's no evidence of that thing existing, then it's evidence of it not existing.

[Skepdick]

The lack of anything I consider a good reason to believe that there won't be evidence for the existence of P.

But absence of evidence is evidence of absence!

So what sort of "lack of anything" would be a evidence for the existence of P ?!?!?!

[Skepdick]

Re that, by the way, because I believe that if something exists there's going to be evidence for it, if we check the available evidence and there's no evidence of that thing existing, then it's evidence of it not existing.

What?

The absence of evidence is evidence of absence (according to you).
"All the available evidence" is no evidence whatsoever.

There will be no evidence of the thing existing UNTIL you find the thing; or UNTIL you search the entire haystack.

[Terrapin Station]

The lack of anything I consider a good reason to believe that there won't be evidence for the existence of P.

But absence of evidence is evidence of absence!

Hence evidence of there being no good reason to believe it.

So what sort of "lack of anything" would be a evidence for the existence of P ?!?!?!

That's not something I would say.

[Skepdick]

Hence evidence of there being no good reason to believe it.

And, yet that same reason (which is no reason at all) is a good reason to believe that evidence will be found?

[Terrapin Station]

"All the available evidence" is no evidence whatsoever.

?? Why are you saying that evidence is no evidence?

There will be no evidence of the thing existing UNTIL you find the thing

No, that's not the case. If the thing has consequences/upshots you can find those consequences or upshots.

. .. or UNTIL you search the entire haystack.

Evidence of a thing doesn't require searching the entire haystack. You find the needle, you have evidence of a needle, even if it's the first thing you look at.

[Terrapin Station]

Hence evidence of there being no good reason to believe it.

And, yet that same reason (which is no reason at all) is a good reason to believe that evidence will be found?

What? Where are you getting that from?

[Skepdick]

Hence evidence of there being no good reason to believe it.

And, yet that same reason (which is no reason at all) is a good reason to believe that evidence will be found?

What? Where are you getting that from?

In the fact that you are searching!

If you don't believe that evidence for P WILL be found, why are you searching?!?!?!

The absence of evidence for P is good reason to believe not-P.
The absence of evidence for P is also a good reason to believe in the existence of evidence for P.

[Terrapin Station]

The absence of evidence for P is also a good reason to believe in the existence of evidence for P.

It's not a belief in the existence of evidence for P. It's a belief that if P exists, there would be evidence for P.

[Skepdick]

It's not a belief in the existence of evidence for P. It's a belief that if P exists, there would be evidence for P.

Obscurantist bullshit.

What's the difference between finding the needle and finding evidence for the needle?

[Terrapin Station]

If you don't believe that evidence for P WILL be found, why are you searching?!?!?!

Because it's possible that it will be found. One's belief could turn out to be wrong.

[Skepdick]

Because it's possible that it will be found. One's belief could turn out to be wrong.

On what evidence (none whatsoever!) do you believe that evidence WILL be found?

[Terrapin Station]

It's not a belief in the existence of evidence for P. It's a belief that if P exists, there would be evidence for P.

Obscurantist bullshit.

What's the difference between finding the needle and finding evidence for the needle?

If the evidence is the needle, no difference. If the evidence is a consequence of it, then it's finding something connected to it instead.