Would you say this statement is true or false?

Question

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

Answer 1

true, just because evidence is not evident (absent) doesn't mean it doesn't exist, therefore not proving (making evident) the absence of anything.

Answer 2

It's a bit murky as written (the second "the" should have been omitted) but essentially true. As in, You can't prove a negative.

The absence of evidence does not mean that evidence will never be found. Let's take an example. A woman is found murdered at home. Her husband is the first suspect. He has no alibi that can be verified. There is no evidence that he was present in the house at the time of her death. The absence of evidence, however, is not proof that he was never there at the time. See?

Answer 3

its false because the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence in literal sense

Answer 4

let's expand such statement...

"i wasn't there when it happened... but when it happened, i could tell you how..."

see, to invoke a truth, there should be a basis and proof of it. in your statement... it clearly defines what isn't there doesn't mean it's not there.... we don't need to prove it if we believe it to be true. yet others, out of curiosity, want more. their hunger of knowing the details is but real that they have to prove it for themselves.

thus your statement holds true... in a certain point of view.

Answer 5

false. there is evidence for everything. just becuse the evidence is not known doesn't mean it's not there.

Answer 6

In a literal sense, True.

Answer 7

An unproven concept is a theory, and a theory cannot be disproved until proven otherwise.

Answer 8

True

Answer 9

True I think...just coz you don't know it doesn't mean it didn't happen...

Answer 10

true, logially speaking.