Absence of evidence is evidence of absence

[Anonymous No.9747017]

Does /sci/ believe in this?

[Ginger-beard the Mutualist Pir(...) No.9747057]

It would have to be absolute absence of evidence, as in there is no doubt that we've searched for evidence to the greatest extent possible.

Most of the times, it's that humanity is ignorant of evidence, not that there is an actual absence of evidence.

[Anonymous No.9747073]

>>9747057
This guy answered just what I thought.
An apparent absence of evidence isn't really the same as a real absence of evidence. An apparent absence of evidence can be used for an argument such as, "as far as we know, B is false and should be treated as such for now" if the search for evidence was good enough.

[Anonymous No.9747165]

>>9747017
It can be depending on your specific research.

[sage goes in all fields No.9747539]

>>9747017
Pic related is a "proof" only given the author's own definitions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_definition#Circularity
And even then all he proved is that absence of evidence -likely- implies evidence of absence, since he's working with conditional probabilities. That's not much more than what we already intuitively know.