Evidence of Absence

theomen February 11, 2018 at 11:33 1400 views 1 comments

It's said to be a logical fallacy to consider absence of evidence, evidence of absence. But since it's impossible to find proof that A is nonexistent, under certain circumstances we can consider a lack of evidence, evidence that proves A does not exist. But is it enough?
What I think this idea is based on, is Occam's razor. Meaning because for A to be existent, one has to consider unnecessary assumptions which may need proof themselves; therefore it's 'safe' to assume that A isn't there. In other words, "the proof" is more based on probability and approximation, rather than a certain logical approach. Now this method may sound acceptable if you can increase the probability up to e.g. 95% so the 5% can be overlooked. But what if due to the nature of A, the odds cannot be devided that unfairly?

Comments (1)

SpacedOut February 12, 2018 at 06:22 #152081 0 likes

What sort of nature would allow A to divide the odds more fairly? Just curious as to what you have in mind. You're describing inductive reasoning, and my guess is taking "absence as evidence" would work in a scenario where evidence was fairly sought out, rather than assumed not to exist because the person in question didn't come across any because they failed to seek properly. But I'll have to revisit that thought, this is just off the cuff.