undefined | Better HN

0 pointsIncRnd5y ago0 comments

The idiom that I mentioned is still true, whether you discuss circumstantial or direct evidence. Lack of Evidence isn't Evidence of Lack.

0 comments

solveit5y ago

Lack of evidence is always weak evidence for evidence of lack, and pretty strong evidence if you've looked hard enough. If you've trawled through loch Ness with a fine toothed comb for decades and haven't seen Nessie, well then that's pretty good evidence for lack of monster.

IncRndOP5y ago

You're confusing correlation with causation. Regarding your point about searching - Have you ever lost your keys, searched for a long time without finding them, then found them by happenstance at a later point when not looking? Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

solveit5y ago

I am saying your definition of evidence is overly strict and at odds with both how we use the term in common speech and with what is useful. My definition of evidence for A is an observation B such that P(A|B)>P(A), and with this definition, lack of evidence most certainly is evidence of lack.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

solveit5y ago

IncRndOP5y ago

solveit5y ago

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse