That article is subtly wrong. Certainly it is less wrong (pun intended) than the reasoning it criticizes, but it does subtly miss the mark. Bayes' Law refers

That article is subtly wrong. Certainly it is less wrong (pun intended) than the reasoning it criticizes, but it does subtly miss the mark. Bayes' Law refers to data: specifically, it relates data to evidence. When a datum provides evidence for a hypothesis, the reverse of that datum must also provide evidence against that hypothesis. That is to say, a datum is either relevant or it's not. If it is relevant, then it will present evidence either for or against a given hypothesis, depending on its value. If you don't know that datum, however, it manages to not provide evidence either way. As such, it is easy to lack evidence either for or against a hypothesis. Through straightforward logical manipulations from there, it's possible to have "absence of evidence" while not having "evidence of absence". Therefore, they cannot be equivalent.