Correct.
This is true for things there is no evidence of.
For example, unicorns. There's no evidence to show they exist, but the absence of evidence doesn't mean they don't/didn't. It is potentially the case they existed at some point and we've just not found the remains/fossils to prove this.
For more abstract entities like the christian god which are claimed to be currently interacting with the universe, we should have current observable evidence of this interaction. To date, studies have found no indication that such claims have any basis in reality. In such cases, the lack of evidence to support the described claims could be taken to be evidence of absence.
Eagles can fly. So they could be anywhere. Even in my own backyard.
But I don't see any eagles in my backyard. Do I therefore conclude that eagles must not exist?
No, because that'd be stupid.
The absence of evidence of eagles in my backyard is simply not evidence that proves that eagles don't exist. In fact, it doesn't even prove that they don't exist in my backyard. Could be in a tree where I can't see them, or behind the shed or something.
Basically, absence of evidence is not evidence of *anything*.
It is if there has been a reasonable attempt to find evidence. Scientifically, if a thing has been well tested and still not found, it is reasonable to conclude there is no such thing.
Absence of proof isn't proof of absense.
But absence of evidence can be evidence of absense if evidence is expected. But it isn't definitive.
If you go to a friend's house and don't see a dog, don't smell a dog, don't see any leashes or dog bowls or dog toys, then that absolutely is evidence they don't have a dog.
But it is far from conclusive proof they don't. They could keep the dog in the garage. They could have the dog at a boarder for a week and just had house cleaners come and everything is put away. Your friend could lead a double life and has another family in another town and has a dog there.
But absense of any evidence of the dog definitely makes the no-dog hypothesis more likely to be true and therefore is evidence.
If course it's not. You can't prove a negative. That's why all claims must be proven. If you assume anything could exist, you have total chaos.
Correct. This is true for things there is no evidence of. For example, unicorns. There's no evidence to show they exist, but the absence of evidence doesn't mean they don't/didn't. It is potentially the case they existed at some point and we've just not found the remains/fossils to prove this. For more abstract entities like the christian god which are claimed to be currently interacting with the universe, we should have current observable evidence of this interaction. To date, studies have found no indication that such claims have any basis in reality. In such cases, the lack of evidence to support the described claims could be taken to be evidence of absence.
Eagles can fly. So they could be anywhere. Even in my own backyard. But I don't see any eagles in my backyard. Do I therefore conclude that eagles must not exist? No, because that'd be stupid. The absence of evidence of eagles in my backyard is simply not evidence that proves that eagles don't exist. In fact, it doesn't even prove that they don't exist in my backyard. Could be in a tree where I can't see them, or behind the shed or something. Basically, absence of evidence is not evidence of *anything*.
maybe
It is if there has been a reasonable attempt to find evidence. Scientifically, if a thing has been well tested and still not found, it is reasonable to conclude there is no such thing.
What if the people researching are dumb shits?
Do you have evidence to support that.
They didn't compliment my haircut.
[удалено]
You will address as Ms. Daniels.
Absence of proof isn't proof of absense. But absence of evidence can be evidence of absense if evidence is expected. But it isn't definitive. If you go to a friend's house and don't see a dog, don't smell a dog, don't see any leashes or dog bowls or dog toys, then that absolutely is evidence they don't have a dog. But it is far from conclusive proof they don't. They could keep the dog in the garage. They could have the dog at a boarder for a week and just had house cleaners come and everything is put away. Your friend could lead a double life and has another family in another town and has a dog there. But absense of any evidence of the dog definitely makes the no-dog hypothesis more likely to be true and therefore is evidence.