What do you personally think of the following quote? Please no comments like, "it's great" or "sounds good."

Question

"Absence of evidence does not amount to evidence of absence."

Remember now, neither does it state anywhere that the lack of evidence amounts to evidence of presence.

Answer 1

I personally think this quote is directed against incredulity, and (radical) skeptics. The latter tend to believe that because something can't be proven NOW, it simply CAN'T be proven at all. This quote shows that we should allow time in our calculations when making a judgment, because what's considered wrong today or unjustifiable can become ordinary truth in the future. Thanks

Answer 2

The key word is "evidence", which should not be confused with "proof". This quote works only sometimes, but it's a dangerous rule of thumb to go by. For example, a treasure chest is said to be buried in the sands of Island X. A thousand holes have been dug in search of this treasure, with no success. Yet it's true that failure in finding the treasure does not suggest that there is no treasure, thus being a good example of the quote. However, let's say that a million holes have been dug, so that virtually the whole of the island has been dug up, but for a few undug spots. Then the odds are against in finding the treasure in any of those undug spots, so that would be a contraindication of this silly quote. It should be jettisoned as an example of lazy thinking, and should have no place in law or science.

Addendum: To those that insist that this homily has scientific value, there's no substitution for sampling theory.

Answer 3

It seems to make sense when you think about it. If there is no evidence for something, you can't simply say that that thing does not exist (i.e. evidence that it doesn't exist), at lease not in most cases. This quote seems particularly appropriate to the argument of evolution with the "missing links" as well as to the God debate (between the religious wanting to prove the existance of god and the non-religious who believe that god is a myth). I guess that's also important in new discoveries. If we just said that the absence of something means that it doesn't exist, cells and cellular pathways would certainly have never been discovered, among numerous other things.

Answer 4

It is fundamental in any investigation and sound scientific research.

Because one has found no evidence of a particular thing, event or situation, does not mean it does not or did not occur.

For example, because you have not seen evidence that a coyote exists in your neighborhood, does not mean that there are no coyotes in your neighborhood.

You may not be looking at the correct time of day (early morning or at dusk); you may not be in the particular area of the neighborhood where they are active (they are creatures of habit and have their own routine and frequent the same trails/routes or feeding areas); they may be getting plenty of food from trash cans and dumpsters so they are not killing cats or small dogs in the area.

So because you have no evidence from sightings and no evidence of feeding or killing, you can say you have not observed coyotes or obtained any evidence of their presence, but you CANNOT legitimately say, "Coyotes do not exist in this area."

They may in fact not exist, but you have no evidence to state that unless you have more evidence such as 24-hour surveillance of every street, yard, etc.

Answer 5

True but incomplete.

Absence of evidence does not amount to evidence of absence nor does it amount to evidence of presence.

This is practically a circular logic approach to justify worshiping a God. Since a negative is virtually impossible to prove then the positive is assumed to be true.

It is foolish and ill-conceived.

Answer 6

It sounds like the argument of incredulity, which, basically stated, means that just because you can't fathom something doesn't mean it isn't possible or can't exist. It's often used by creationists/IDer's to try to "explain away" evolution as being so inconcievable or seemingly improbable, it surely could not have happened.

The inverse--which would be something along the lines of "just because you can imagine something is evidence that it is possible or can exist--is just about as illogical an argument, and is also used by creationists/IDer's to try and explain things because "God made them that way".

Answer 7

I think that someone has been watching the Boondocks. But per Gin Rummy (as voiced by Samuel L): Because something does not appear to be there does not mean it was never there at all. Sometimes tracks are covered up well, but that doesn't mean that tracks weren't that at once, it's just that you would never know at all. But the real question is, since the only conclusion that you can make is that you don't know that they were, can you deny that they weren't there at all?

Answer 8

This sounds like a legal question. It could mean that because is no evidence apparent, it does not necessarily mean this means something was not here.

Answer 9

I believe it to be true. Say John Doe murders his wife, Jane. Say the police have found no clues to date. This does not mean that Jane was not murdered or that John is innocent. It means that further searching needs to be done.

Answer 10

Just because you don't have the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.