it’s flat out wrong, from a bayesian perspective. it may be weak evidence, but it is evidence
I’ve always thought ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’ is flawed for material truths because of the second law: presence of X, X being at different entropy from background, would necessarily produce evidence. No fire without smoke basically https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence …
-
-
-
Yeah true, but as with all things Bayesian it seems to miss the point by letting the universe of discourse be effectively unbounded
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This is the intellectual basis to Rumsfeld’s “unknown unknowns” - there’s no evidence for x but our paranoia dictates that we must act as if x is possible, maybe even likely.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think you're trying to make a logic argument out of a semantic argument. When that phrase was coined, "evidence" was taken to mean "direct evidence", which is different from indirect evidence (what a thermodynamic signature may produce, e.g.).
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.