> Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence Yes it is. You may be confusing 'evidence' for 'proof', but here's a proof that absence of evidence is indeed e

> Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence Yes it is. You may be confusing 'evidence' for 'proof', but here's a proof that absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence. (How much? That depends.) http://kim.oyhus.no/absence/index.html http://kim.oyhus.no/absence/index.html