Talk:Negative evidence

Possible topics for discussion (--Sethpeck (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)):

• Evidence of absense vs. absense of evidence (WMDs, Donald Rumsfeld, Gin Rummy)
• Phlogiston, Aether
• Dark Matter
• Obvious atheistic viewpoints

I'm shocked AD wrote this, but I need to ask "can you rewrite it so it makes sense to those of us not used to dealing with logical terms?" I read it twice, and walked away not having a clue what "negative evidence" is. Is it just a lack of evidence, and if so, why does it have its own name. Thanks in advance. GodotI smell roasted chestnuts. droollllllll. 21:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it's stubby and I meant to come back to it. It's not very good, I admit. I vow to fix it.--^talk 22:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not the stubbyness. jsut the fact that I walked away not having a clue what i wrote. which is really unusual for me, when reading your work. GodotI smell roasted chestnuts. droollllllll. 22:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I just slapped something out. I'll fix it! I swear!--^talk 22:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This is certainly more interesting now...Perhaps we can snark it up a bit with examples of where negative evidence is used presently to get a point across in a logically inappropriate way...--Sethpeck (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Symbolic logic =/= Philosophical logic

While, in symbolic logic, "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" is obviously logical, in philosophical logic (i.e. the logic concerning the real world and not the internal rules of symbols), saying "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." is also known as shifting the burden of proof. We should be more clear on this. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Tagged that quote wrong. Better? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 02:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)