3 ms·
citing a paper that says it found “no evidence” of something always seems weak to me in terms of refuting something, I also found no evidence by doing nothing,
by luxuryballs 1y ago
citing a paper that says it found “no evidence” of something always seems weak to me in terms of refuting something, I also found no evidence by doing nothing, how do I know the thing you checked or the context in which it was checked is any better than my doing nothing?
not finding something doesn’t seem any more or less convincing…
- andai 1y agoI think it's called "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" ?
- esafak 1y agoIt is, though. What it is not, is proof of absence.
- darth_avocado 1y agoI claim I am god. Pretty much everyone who knows me suggested there’s no evidence of me being god. Would you say not finding that I’m god doesn’t seem any more or less convincing?
- maxbond 1y ago> [H]ow do I know the thing you checked or the context in which it was checked is any better than my doing nothing? Open the paper and look for it's methodology.