Is this correct?
B is evidence of A iff P(A | B) > P(A)
C is evidence of absence if A iff P(A | C) < P(A)
D is independent of A iff P(A | D) = P(A)
So absence of any evidence B can be either C or D, so it isn't true in general that it has to be C (evidence of absence).
>The distinction on wikipedia here isn't quite right
Where does it contradict what you wrote?
The article you just posted, dumbass!
It says "[An argument from ignorance] asserts that a proposition IS TRUE because it has not yet been PROVEN false or a proposition IS FALSE because it has not yet been PROVEN true."
For anyone arguing that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence: why can your same reasoning not be used to say that an absence of evidence is evidence of presence?
>atheism
a-theism
(the lack of) (belief in God)
>vigorously believing
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
>t. agnostic
a-gnostic
(the lack of) (having knowledge)
Yes, clearly you are agnostic, at least of what atheism is.
Because the absence of evidence for X is not evidence of presence of X. Obviously the phrase is referring to evidence of and absence of the same thing, not opposing things.
>Obviously the phrase is referring to evidence of and absence of the same thing, not opposing things.
The phrase refers to evidence of absence and absence of evidence, how are "evidence" and "absence" "the same thing"?
They aren't, what they are *of* is the same thing, you illiterate baboon.
evidence of "absence"
absence of "evidence"
>absence
>evidence
>the same thing
...