RE: Can a lack of evidence be considered proof?
August 21, 2016 at 2:21 am
(This post was last modified: August 21, 2016 at 2:41 am by Mechaghostman2.)
To paraphrase Neil DeGrasse Tyson:
"If you go out into the woods, and you look for bear tracks, bear scat, and bear markings, then you find that there are none, you have proven that a bear isn't in those woods. Not conclusively, but enough so that you can feel safe letting your kids play in the woods."
So I'd say, yeah, pretty much. A little catch phrase I've created is, "Lack of evidence is evidence until further evidence is presented."
"If you go out into the woods, and you look for bear tracks, bear scat, and bear markings, then you find that there are none, you have proven that a bear isn't in those woods. Not conclusively, but enough so that you can feel safe letting your kids play in the woods."
So I'd say, yeah, pretty much. A little catch phrase I've created is, "Lack of evidence is evidence until further evidence is presented."
