Absence of proof is not proof of absence...

I agree with that but it seems to me that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

For example, it cannot be proven that non-avian dinosaurs all died out at the end of the cretaceous but the absence of any evidence showing that they have survived must be considered evidence that they have not.

Agree or disagree?

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

Pretzel · 70-79, M

I would prefer all scientific facts to be prefaced with "based on our current understanding...."

used to be that diseases were caused by evil spirits and bad vapors

used to bleed people to cure them

used to attend to a diseased body and then deliver a baby

used to drink water and milk without treating it

and the more we learn, the more we realize we don't know...yet

Pikachu

@Pretzel

Well i think the problem is that scientists take that unspoken preface for granted while the general public doesn't.
In fact when they read quotes from scientists with wording like "it appears that" or "it is likely that" they read it as lack of confidence in the results. Or they ignore such qualifiers entirely because they're totally unaware of the provisional conclusions that science makes lol