Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence BUT

[Zzyzx]

.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence BUT

Absence of evidence IS sound reason to question / doubt claims.

Those who accept claims without verifiable evidence are prone to being naive and gullible. Verifiable means that the evidence itself can be examined for truth and accuracy (not that it need be each time, but that anyone interested and motivated can investigate -- there are means to check).

Examples of NON-verfiable 'evidence' are unsupported testimonials, stories, opinions.


Anyone disagree?

[Divine Insight]

.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,... {snip}

Anyone disagree?

I disagree that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. This obviously can be true in some situations. For example, we don't yet have evidence that there exists other intelligent life in the universe. That alone does not mean there isn't. Especially considering that the reason for our absence of evidence is because it's impossible for us to even check. In other words, we can't truly say that there is "absence of evidence" in the entire universe because we have no way of looking for that evidence. So this is a case where absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

However, there are clearly situations in which absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Here's a perfect example:

Someone calls you at work and tells you that your house just burned down. At that moment you have no evidence to the contrary of the claim (i.e. absence of evidence). However, you quickly drive home to see the ashes of your home, but when you arrive you are pleased to discover that there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of any fire. You're house is in precise the same condition as when you last saw it.

So now you have "Evidence" that there was no fire, and your evidence comes in the form of "Absence of Evidence" for the fire. So in this situation absence of evidence for the fire, is proof that the fire did not occur.

I like the above example because this example can be extended to something like the Biblical Flood. We actually have "evidence" that no such flood had occurred because there is an 'absence of evidence' for the flood. And that 'absence of evidence' is very much akin to finding that your house had not burned down.

So the saying, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is not always true. It can be true in some cases, like when we are unable to provide sufficient evidence to the contrary. Like in the case of other intelligent life in the universe. Just because we don't currently have evidence for other intelligent life in the universe (i.e. absence of evidence) doesn't mean that we can conclude that it's not there. And the reason in this case is because we can't check the entire universe for other intelligent lifeforms. In other words, we can't confirm that there is indeed an "absence of evidence". If we could confirm that, then we could say that absence of evidence is evidence of absences.

So yes, if I tell you that your house burned down, and you can look at your house and see the "absence of evidence" of any fire, you can indeed conclude that I was fibbing in a very nasty and false way. And whilst you might be angry with me for telling such a nasty fib, you'd probably also be extremely happy that I had misrepresented the truth.

[Talishi]

I disagree that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. This obviously can be true in some situations. For example, we don't yet have evidence that there exists other intelligent life in the universe. That alone does not mean there isn't.

In the absence of evidence of alien life, our situation is indistinguishable from the absence of alien life.

In the absence of evidence of a God, our situation is indistinguishable from the absence of God.

A difference which makes no difference IS no difference.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

I agree that in some very well defined circumstances (with little or no wiggle room), the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Thus, it should not be made as a blanket statement since there are exceptions.

[rikuoamero]

I disagree that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. This obviously can be true in some situations. For example, we don't yet have evidence that there exists other intelligent life in the universe. That alone does not mean there isn't.

In the absence of evidence of alien life, our situation is indistinguishable from the absence of alien life.

In the absence of evidence of a God, our situation is indistinguishable from the absence of God.

A difference which makes no difference IS no difference.

Au contraire, my dear Talishi...are there any people out there demanding laws in favour of those who believe there are aliens regardless of the lack of any actual evidence?
That to me is a big difference.
On a purely singular, individual level, I would agree with you, but once we start talking on a societal level...no, I cannot agree then.

[Cephus]

.
[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

I agree that in some very well defined circumstances (with little or no wiggle room), the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Thus, it should not be made as a blanket statement since there are exceptions.

It all depends on the claim being made. If the claim is that there is an elephant in my left front pocket, that's pretty easy to disprove by finding no evidence whatsoever for its veracity. The larger the claim, the less easy it is to prove it false by finding no evidence that it is true.

But as theism and atheism are beliefs (or lack of beliefs), not truth-claims, the lack of evidence is a really good reason not to believe the claims of theists, just like I shouldn't believe that there's an elephant in my pocket without significant evidence to support it. Rational people should not believe things without objective evidence that it's true. There is no objective evidence for gods, hence rational people shouldn't believe in them.