This seems like a needlessly pedantic parsing of the phrase "no evidence". I agree with Scott that we should take a Bayesian approach to scientific claims. So w

This seems like a needlessly pedantic parsing of the phrase "no evidence". I agree with Scott that we should take a Bayesian approach to scientific claims. So what does "no evidence" mean to a Bayesian? It means that I don't have have any data that would cause me to update my priors significantly on a given claim. This is consistent with both the "low evidence" and "low probability" sense of the phrase. Words and phrases can have different meanings in different contexts, and that's fine. It sort of reminds me of debates over the term "proof". It's perfectly legitimate to say that something has been "scientifically proven", as long as we understand that we're not talking about proof in the mathematical or logical sense, but in a probabilistic sense.