Here's another example - consider if we applied your standard in the court room and considered that an asbence of evidence of guilt was not evidence of an asbence of guilt. Simply lock people away who have been accused of crimes because we can not rule out the possibility of evidence emerging in the future that they are guilty. Imagine how much money we could save, we could do away with the justice system entirely. This is what you're suggesting should be done.
Alternatively, we can accept the absence of evidence of guilt as being evidence of the absence of guilt, accept that sometimes this means that we will, from time to time release someone who is actually guilty and accept that at sometime in the future we can revisit the question of their guilt should further evidence arise (or put in place things like double jeporady laws to stop that).
@ Trippy,
Okay we can continue...
Your generosity knows no bounds.
I have no way to prove if you are or are not a pedophile.
Correct. Although some might interpret your rephrasing of my initial suggestion as some kind of an attempt at an insult.
If evidence that was conclusive showed itself that you are a pedophile at some point in the future then the argument would be solved.
Right. Which is the same thing I have said all along. If there is no evidence to support the hypothesis (I am a pedophile) then we must reject the hypothesis. If at some poiint in the future further evidence emerges to support the hypothesis, then we can reconsider its validity.
Without evidence you could never be positive either way and you cannot prove the negative.
According to you.
According to you it should be accepted on blind faith that I am a pedophile, and I should be treated as such. After all, you have annecdotal evidence to suggest I might be - I am often seen down at the parks with children.
The rest of us reject the hypothesis because there is no evidence to support it and accept the absence of evidence as evidence of absence and presume that the annecdotal evidence might have an alternative explanation.
I don't think anybody could prove you are not a pedophile, but it could be proved you are a pedophile (if evidence existed).
At some point in the future, sure. According to you, however, I should be regarded and treated as one because it should be accepted on blind faith that I am, in fact, a pedophile.
The alternative, which is what I have stated all along is to accept the absence of evidence as evidence of absence, reject the hypothesis that I am a pedophile and revisit that decision at a later date should more compelling
About Evidence of absence in a different light. If you pressed the on switch of an electric motor and failed to measure any magnetism or electricity then you could likely surmise that the motor is not working using the evidence of absence. You can look at what should hypothetically be there if the hypothesis is correct. This is one example of how it could work.
It does not prove the motor does not work though. Perhaps the measuring equipment is malfunctioning. It is good for guiding your belief only, and when I say belief I am talking structured and not something with no hypothesis in place (like a god).
In one sense this analogy is flawed.
We have independent lines of evidence that suggests that motors in general work.
We can repeat the experiment with using the same measuring equipment and multiple motors.
We can repeat the experiment with the same motor and multiple measuring devices.
We can gather independent lines of evidence to indicate whether or not the motor is working (is it spinning?).
All of which falls under the category of exploring the hypothesis further to determine how wrong it is and where it is wrong.
None of this contradicts the assertion which I will repeat for you, once again, sometimes an absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.
