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 »

SW-User

Well depends what you truly consider evidence, some may say they have seen Bigfoot 😁 wouldn't that be an evidence? Witness.

Pikachu

@SW-User

What i consider evidence is that which can be corroborated and demonstrated.
In fact when it comes to bigfoot, the number of alleged sightings that cannot be corroborated by even a singe shred of objective evidence rather undermines the reliability of those accounts.

SW-User

@Pikachu mm and what about evidence that isn't found yet but will be found later on?. Then how could it mean that for sure absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Simply it hasn't found yet but has always been there... So nope, ir doesn't apply. Surely yes, sometimes there's no evidence at all, with or without our reach.
That's interesting about science that isn't set in stone and is often evolving

Pikachu

@SW-User

what about evidence that isn't found yet but will be found later on?.

That's why i make the distinction between evidence and proof.
It's a provisional assessment, not an absolute claim.