The problem with your reasoning is that you are falsely equating absence of evidence into a qualifier for an opinion or conclusion, which it isn't. The absence

The problem with your reasoning is that you are falsely equating absence of evidence into a qualifier for an opinion or conclusion, which it isn't. The absence of evidence only means that such evidence is missing and is in no way suggestive of anything else. All conclusions drawn from an absence of evidence are otherwise unqualified assumptions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_assumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_assumption This was the exact reasoning people bet the farm on the housing market prior to late 2008. There was no evidence the housing market ever depreciated, so with that absence of evidence the housing market must therefore not ever depreciate. Contrary to that reasoning the housing market crashed and I got my house as a foreclosure at a heavily depreciated value.