Absence of proof is not proof of absence...agreed. But is absence of evidence not evidence of absence?

Personally i do think that an absence of evidence for something for which evidence is sought is indeed evidence of its absence. Not proof of its absence but evidence.

Example: The absence of concrete evidence of Bigfoot is at this point evidence that it does not exist. It's not proof that Bigfoot doesn't exist but the sheer lack of evidence seems to me itself to be disconfirming evidence.

What are your thoughts?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

CopperCicada · M

No. Absence of evidence is never evidence of absence.

A simple thought experiment. Don't look. Don't study. Don't test. You have maximized the absence of evidence. You have also maximized your inability to exclude any test hypothesis.

Pikachu

@CopperCicada

Well i did specify that this applies in cases where evidence has been sought.

CopperCicada · M

@Pikachu Well, that's a tricky caveat. Often seeking evidence is moot because we are looking in the wrong places in the wrong ways. The diversity of phenomena we can study in science is really very limited.

Pikachu

@CopperCicada

Well that could well be. Which is why i would consider absence of evidence to be evidence of absence but not proof. A provisional conclusion.