/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9527782
>Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If evidence would be expected given the hypothesis then its absence is indeed evidence against the hypothesis.

I have worked my way through three textbooks about Bayesian Statistics and other related work in ML and so forth.

In Bayes's terms, the failure for expected evidence to appear is data for which one should update. As in Sherlock Holmes's "dog that didn't bark in the night".

Or given Jesus's prediction that he would return within the lifetime of some of those present, his failure to show up is also evidence against claims made on his behalf that he was the anointed one (==Messiah/Christ).

Your failure to display an understanding the rudiments of Bayesian statistics is evidence that you know virtually nothing about it.