Let me give the example I run into most frequently. (Again, this is more archaeological as opposed to historical where the idea is called the "Argument from Silence.")
Xtians insist that Jerusalem was the capital of a great empire under "David" and "Solomon" in the 10th century BC. 150 years of digging have failed to turn up any "evidence" of a major city in that time period. In fact, what has been uncovered is a miserable little shithole of a village. Moreover, surveys have shown that the entire region of Judah in the 10th-8th centuries BC was an underpopulated region of herders with a few scattered hamlets. When confronted with "evidence" of the "absence" of their precious Davidic empire xtians almost always reply with that mantra by which they mean "keep digging and you'll find it."
Archaeologists are down to bedrock in places in Jerusalem. They have found flint tools from neolithic inhabitants as well as Middle Bronze, Late Bronze, Iron Age and so on up to the present. What has not been found is any indication of a major city during the Iron Age which could be attributed to "David" or anyone else. Thus, the "absence of evidence" for such a city IS evidence of the absence of that city. It is not "proof" because someone could find something in the future but right now the idea of a major 10th century civilization in that spot lacks support outside of fundie circles and those twits will believe anything thats fits their fairy tale belief system.
Were I to assert that the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania was founded by Europeans in 1500 and then organize an archaeological excavation to dig down to 1500 levels which found no evidence of Europeans in the area it could safely be assumed that I was full of shit. The absence of evidence for European settlement on the site at that time would be "evidence of absence."
Xtians insist that Jerusalem was the capital of a great empire under "David" and "Solomon" in the 10th century BC. 150 years of digging have failed to turn up any "evidence" of a major city in that time period. In fact, what has been uncovered is a miserable little shithole of a village. Moreover, surveys have shown that the entire region of Judah in the 10th-8th centuries BC was an underpopulated region of herders with a few scattered hamlets. When confronted with "evidence" of the "absence" of their precious Davidic empire xtians almost always reply with that mantra by which they mean "keep digging and you'll find it."
Archaeologists are down to bedrock in places in Jerusalem. They have found flint tools from neolithic inhabitants as well as Middle Bronze, Late Bronze, Iron Age and so on up to the present. What has not been found is any indication of a major city during the Iron Age which could be attributed to "David" or anyone else. Thus, the "absence of evidence" for such a city IS evidence of the absence of that city. It is not "proof" because someone could find something in the future but right now the idea of a major 10th century civilization in that spot lacks support outside of fundie circles and those twits will believe anything thats fits their fairy tale belief system.
Were I to assert that the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania was founded by Europeans in 1500 and then organize an archaeological excavation to dig down to 1500 levels which found no evidence of Europeans in the area it could safely be assumed that I was full of shit. The absence of evidence for European settlement on the site at that time would be "evidence of absence."
