"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

[Edwardo Piet]

I have sometimes heard and sometimes read the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

But, if this is the case, wouldn't that mean that absence of any evidence of a coin in my pocket is not evidence that one isn't there? (and I'm talking about a detectable coin of course).

[Minimalist]

That phrase, coined by bible thumping Egyptologist, Kenneth Kitchen is grasped by fundies like the last pound of bacon on earth.

Of course absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It is not "proof" of absence as future discoveries can overturn the current understanding.

Aside from foolishly embracing the concept fundies use it in places where it is not appropriate. Solomon's city of Jerusalem is a classic example. They insist that even though archaeology has failed to find evidence of such a city it must be there because the fucking bible says so. What they miss is that archaeology has found a shitty little village, at most, on the site at the time asserted even by the fundies for fucking "solomon."

So, not only do they insist that there must be more evidence out there which has not yet been found they dismiss what has been found because it contradicts their bullshit.

This is why fundies need to be dismissed.

[Angrboda]

The saying is correct. It's also frequently misinterpreted. Perhaps it would be clearer to say, "Absence of evidence, by itself, is not evidence of absence."

[Darkstar]

See, they're not talking about a detectable god, at least not one that is detectable to people who aren't already convinced he is real, that is. Awfully convenient, isn't it...

[Norfolk And Chance]

The saying is correct. It's also frequently misinterpreted. Perhaps it would be clearer to say, "Absence of evidence, by itself, is not evidence of absence."

What else do you need apart from evidence?

I'm with Min on this. Just because some man said absence of evidence is not evidence of absence does not make it true or even remotely so. The way some people use that phrase to try and end an argument in their favour, you'd think it was a universal law or something.

---

See, they're not talking about a detectable god, at least not one that is detectable to people who aren't already convinced he is real, that is. Awfully convenient, isn't it...

How do you tell the difference between an undetectable god and a non exisitent god?

[Edwardo Piet]

Well of course you can't "tell the difference" between an undetectable god and a non-existent god. If you could, that would make him detectable.

[Kirbmarc]

Well of course you can't "tell the difference" between an undetectable god and a non-existent god. If you could, that would make him detectable.

If you don't have a way to detect something, believing in it is irrational.

[Angrboda]

Well of course you can't "tell the difference" between an undetectable god and a non-existent god. If you could, that would make him detectable.

If you don't have a way to detect something, believing in it is irrational.

Dark energy.

---

The saying is correct. It's also frequently misinterpreted. Perhaps it would be clearer to say, "Absence of evidence, by itself, is not evidence of absence."

What else do you need apart from evidence?

I'm with Min on this. Just because some man said absence of evidence is not evidence of absence does not make it true or even remotely so. The way some people use that phrase to try and end an argument in their favour, you'd think it was a universal law or something.

What I said and what Min said do not contradict each other.

If I believe there is a starving cat in my neighbor's house, and I go look for it and don't find it, my search results are evidence of the absence of a cat. However if I just sit in my own house and ponder whether or not the cat exists, prior to looking for it, my absence of evidence in that case is not evidence of absence. And in the more general case, the amount that absence counts as evidence depends on the probability, given it exists, that the lack of evidence in observations conducted so far could occur. Needless to say, that calculation can be highly subjective.

But an absence of evidence, in and of itself, is evidence of nothing. Imagine the opposite case. Do you have evidence of a blonde haired, blue-eyed Chinaman named Wong living in Shanghai? Is that evidence he doesn't exist? Do all the things you haven't personally examined therefore have evidence against their existence because of your ignorance?

[Kirbmarc]

Dark energy

"Dark energy" is just a label for something whose nature is unknown, but that we know it has to exist because of its physical effects (see for example here or here). So "dark energy" (whatever it is) is detectable, albeit in an indirect way.

[Angrboda]

Dark energy

"Dark energy" is just a label for something whose nature is unknown, but that we know it has to exist because of its physical effects (see for example here or here). So "dark energy" (whatever it is) is detectable, albeit in an indirect way.

We infer its presence, because we detect gravitational and inflationary effects consistent with its existence. This may not be a result of dark energy. What would it mean for you to have just said that we detect something that isn't there, in that case? It would mean you are using the word detect in a non-standard and unorthodox sense. Nice try. Equivocation noted and refused.

This is why evidence isn't limited to detection. And this is why your statement is wrong. We have evidence of the existence of dark energy. We can't detect it. If we could, it would no longer be dark energy.

(Note that there have been many inferred scientific facts that proved wrong, from the luminiferous ether to the corpuscular theory of light. Inference from evidence is not detection.)