Is absence of evidence evidenc o' absence???? Crashfrog, Percy, Ludo

Crashfrog writes:There's an astounding lack of evidence for Bigfoot, and absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I wouldn't say that I'm particularly "anti-Bigfoot", but I'm anti-nonsense, and this pretty much seems like nonsense.

Percy writes:Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and those arguing scientifically have to remember this rule. What can be done scientifically is to point out the paucity of evidence, and to put it in context by listing all the other speculated phenomena which have comparable amounts of evidence, e.g., UFO's, alien abductions, ghosts, ESP, pyramid power, magnetic bracelets, homeopathy, therapeutic touch, assisted communication, and so forth.

Crashfrog writes: But that is no rule - absence of evidence is evidence of absence, that's well-known. Every reasonable person considers absence of evidence to be evidence of absence. How else would you detect absence except by an absence of evidence?"Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" is the counter-reasonable nonsense people say when they're trying to defend the existence of something they don't have any evidence for, and it's surprising to see someone as intelligent as yourself fall for it. It's a clearly transparent dodge.