>Most of us understand "absence of evidence" to mean "we have failed to find a specific piece of evidence predicted by a theory we are (implicitly or explicitly) testing,"
But if you didn't find that specific piece then you must have found a different one, so you do have evidence.
Just a friendly reminder that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Justin Sanchez
Ian Collins
>Just use your brain - "absence of evidence" doesn't even exist in the real world as you have defined it.
Where is string theory evidence?
Jackson Jenkins
>I am not an arab
NASSIM nicholas TALEB
Joseph Brooks
Hold up buckaroo, the negation of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is not "absence of evidence is *necessarily* evidence of absence"
>you must have found a different ***specific piece of evidence predicted by the theory we are testing***
Nope
>Where is string theory evidence?
"We don't have it, so we actually have evidence, and not an absence of evidence after all hurr durr"
Andrew Perez
>"We don't have it, so we actually have evidence, and not an absence of evidence after all hurr durr"
Who are you quoting?
Matthew Richardson
>Hold up buckaroo, the negation of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is not "absence of evidence is *necessarily* evidence of absence"
How can you prove absence of evidence can possibly be evidence of absence without assuming what you're trying to prove?
Lincoln Watson
>Nope
Actually yes.