Logic wonks: what is formal account of “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”?
My guess: breakdown of (propositional) proof by contrapositive through addition of existential quantification to the antecedent?
Ie p=> q ==~q=>~p
but
exists x: p(x)=>q(x) ~= ~q(x) => ~p(x)
Conversation
Replying to
No, it's purely propositional; do you want me to explain it to you?
Replying to
Absence of evidence *is* (probabilistic) evidence of absence, though usually very weak. Key is the distinction between legal and epistemic notions of evidence.
2


