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

A while back on a thread about Bigfoot, there was a particular difference of opinion between Percy and Crash not exactly about bigfoot, but about whether absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Percy brought it up first, saying that it is not, while Crash tried to prove the opposite using an analogy.I propose that on the great debate forum that Crashfrog and Percy "duke it out" to see whether absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I would also like to participate myself in this debate, to see if Crash's arguments can stand against two different views on this. If Crash doesn't want to debate two people with a different view by himself, then this debate can be just between Percy and crash. I REALLY want to see crash and Percy reason with each other on this, whethr I am participating or not.In the debate anyone can use analogies, scientific evidence, historical evidence, logical equations, and anything else to try to prove one's point.If Crash and Percy dont want to join, Then one person for Crash's position can join and it will then be one on one (percy or myself and other person). But either way I want those for "Absence o' evidence is evidence o'absence! " to bring forth their case for why it is so, and then replies to it shalt follow.Edited by LudoRephaim, : No reason given.

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

That is a good definition; There is also a logical fallacy that names the argument, "appeal to Ignorance".

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

BTW: I dont know how to link up one thread to another, but the difference of opinion is in message 158 of Nuggin's Bigfoot thread. Crashfrog tried to prove through argument alone that if there is no evidence for something, then it doesn't exist.

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

Both belief/faith and scientific, adding a little logic (if any...) to the mixture. I just want to hear the case for Crash's thinking on "absence 0 evidence is evidence 0 absence" (pink yet invisible unicorns and the like can come up when reffering to God or Bigfoot or anything of belief, inquiry or science).My position is that absence of evidence in and of it'self is not evidence of absence. You also need evidence THAT something doesn't exist. For example, If Crash says there is no evidence that Bigfoot is real, he could also state any type of evidence that shows that there is not enough edible food for such an ape to exist, that it would have trouble in competing with Grizzlies or black bears or wolves, or the biomechanics of such an upright being being so far out as to being impossible (though I am by no means a skeptic whe reffering to Bigfoot, and these objections to bigfeet are IMHO not convincing. Just a Using 'em for example)That would be my view on that. And just saying "absence evidence/evidence absence" is not only an excuse for lazy thinking and lazy inquiry (not to mention subclass imagination) but also is totally bad logic and proven wrong on more than one occasion. Occam's Razor has been abused in this fashion by some (I'll give an example if you want later.)That's my ideas on the subjectamundo Edited by LudoRephaim, : No reason given.Edited by LudoRephaim, : No reason given.Edited by LudoRephaim, : No reason given.

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4