>evidence of absence is evidence of absence
Why do people do believe this?
>>834123
Because it's true Absence of evidence doesn't PROVE absence of the phenomena, but if you keep looking and never find anything then that is itself good evidence that perhaps there is nothing there at all.
>evidence of absence is evidence of absence
There's literally nothing possibly wrong with this statement.
>>834123
Sure you didn't mean absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Because what you wrote is a logical necessity.
>>834123
because most people aren't retarded.
>>834123
>evidence of absence is absence of evidence
What mean?
>evidence of absence is evidence of absence
Typo?
> Why do people do believe this?
This is like first law of logic. Tautologies are true statements.
>>834123
I hope you misquoted someone trying to say something rational. I doubt it though.
On the other hand, I constantly have people saying that Jesus can't heal amputees, because there is no story in the bible about Jesus healing amputees.
Because to the godless, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
>absence of absence is not evidence of absence
Is there a word for phrases like these? A completely reasonable and logical statement that people only use when they want to convince you of their bullshit
>correlation is not causation
Is another one
>>834851
Except correlation not being causation is a very useful tool with dealing with somebody trying to shill bullshit on you too.
>>834851
Canard?
>>834862
Maybe not canard.
Maxim?
>>834867
"dime-store platitude" is a personal favorite.
>>834851
Don't forget the classical one!
> You can't prove a negative
Which is logically wrong, misused most of the times and even contradicts itself.
>>834851
>>834878
There are no statements of absolute truth.
My personal favorite.
