Peanut Gallery

CS, the entirety of your "argument" rests on semantic gymnastics.You are drawing a disctinction between "observing the entire surface of a desk unblocked by a pen" and "failing to observe a pen when searching a desk." These two statements mean the same thing. You are drawing a distinction without a difference so that you can play word games and maintain your pre-established position that an absence of evidence can never be evidence of absence, even when the evidence is specific and expected, and the area in question is limited and easily searched.A distinction without a difference, CS, is not a difference. Your argument is essentially this:"A is not evidence of B. A is evidence of B."You do this because you want to be able to cling to a tired and misused maxim, that an absence of evidence can never be evidence of absence, even though it is childishly easy to demonstrate scenarios where that maxim is false.How does it feel to have such strong cognitive dissonance?

...except that I showed very clearly and accurately that your doublespeak is the equivalent of my own claim rearranged such that it appears to support the opposite."The absence of an expected observation of a pen" is the equivalent of "the observation of a desk unblocked by a pen." There's absolutely zero difference between the two statements, except that in your version you use obvious doublespeak to try to make them sound different.Again, you're drawing a distinction without a difference. You're saying, very iterally, "A is not evidence of B. A is evidence of B." You are simultaneously making two mutually exclusive claims. I am arguing the position. Just because being wrong makes you feel like an idiot or pointing out your cognitive dissonance makes you feel uncomfortable doesn't make anything I've said argumentum ad hominem. I've stated my case clearly and consistently from the beginning, showing a very simple and clear case that illustrates that an absence of evidence, when that evidence is expected, is evidence of absence. You are the one who's played semantic gymnastics and tried to restate the absence of evidence in a way that frames it as positive evidence; you're the one drawing a distinction withotu a difference; you're the one using doublespeak.I think you'd fit in just fine in Orwell's dystopia. I did. You then tried to claim that I'm just as guilty of semantic gymnastics as you are. The difference is that I fully described and illustrated why your version is just a misleading restatement of my own words, that you've drawn a distinction where there is no difference. I'm more than happy to come across as a douche in the process of destroying an argument. I couldn't care less if you like me. Is the widdle baby going to cwy now?

...let me simplify this for you again, CS.You say that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.To support this, you say that my own claim that an absence of expected evidence of a pen on a desk is not really what provides evidence that there is no pen on the desk. Rather, you say, it is the positive evidence of the desk unblocked by an image of a pen.You are drawing a distinction without a difference, and claiming that the distinction shows that an absence of evidence really isn;t evidence of absence, and that I am wrong.I am saying this:"The old adage that A is not evidence of B is wrong. Look at this scenario, where A is actually evidence of B. This falsifies the old adage, it cannot be a general rule."You are saying this:"That old adage is actually true. A is not evidence of B. Instead, A is evidence of B."Do you see yet? Everyone else does. The difference here is that rather than only making an equivalent statement, CS, you're saying that your version of the equivalent statement actually shows that the old adage, "an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," is verified.If the two statements are equivalent, CS, and one of them shows that an absence of evidence in one case is very clearly evidence of absence, then the old adage is falsified. In other words, you're wrong, and in order to hold your position you need to simultaneously believe two mutually exclusive claims. Doublethink. Cognitive dissonance.You decided to continue your belief in the adage. Now, you're trying to use clever arguments in the form of semantic distortions to allow you to maintain your belief that the adage is valid, despite very clear evidence that the adage is not universal.Cry me a river. Stop playing admin. If you have a problem, report it in the appropriate board administration thread. If all you were doing was restating my position in a different way, we would not be having an argument. You;re using a semantic difference, framing an absence of evidence as actually somehow positive evidence (an absurdity in its own right) to claim that an absence of evidence really is not evidenc of absence.I demonstrated a scenario that falsifies the adage. You used semantic games to restate the evidence of absence such that it sounds (to you at least) like positive evidence rather than an absence of expected evidence. You then claimed that your equivalent statement showed that the adage is true, rather than false."A is not actually evidence of B. A is evidence of B."You're wrong, CS, and very obviously so. Stop clinging to your doublethink and admit that not seeing a pen when you search a desk is evidence that the pen is not present on the desk, and therefore an absence of expected evidence is evidence of absence. Cry more, crybaby.

You missed a small bit.The absence of evidence itself is frequently used synonymously with ignorance. It's a basic limitation of the English language - an absence of evidence in many cases is nothing more than ignorance, and does in fact have no effect, positive or negative, on the likelihood that a given hypothesis is valid.But an absence of specific positive evidence (like the lack of an observation of a pen) when that specific evidence would be expected if the hypothesis were valid (as in the case of a pen on a desk) and where a legitimate search for that evidence has been made and where the domain of possibility is limited (for example, a desk is a finite and searchable area; asking whether a pen exists anywhere in the universe is a different question entirely) is evidence of absence (or the falsity of a given hypothesis).All of the components are important. But it's very clear that the adage "an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is not a universal, general rule.This is what I've said in every instance where I used the example of a pen on a desk, RAZD. Are you now, finally, saying that you agree?

It's not just me, right? RAZD did just finally agree that an absence of evidence can be evidence of absence? He did just agree with something he's argued against for months?

Could be a person butchering a cow. Could be a person standing next to a cow. Could be a horse. Could be something completely different. Could be worshiping. Could not be.It's a frakking stick figure with a vaguely bovine outline divided into sections, which may be part of the "design" or may just be an attempts at shading.Guessing at specifics like what the stick figure is doing with the vaguely bovine outline requires more context than this photograph. Saying "I don;t know what else it could be" is ridiculous and a clear sign of confirmation bias - the picture in no way clearly demonstrates "worshiping." Not by itself."I don;t know what else it could be" only requires that someone else have a better imagination than you. Don't believe things because the evidence allows you to, believe what the evidence compels you to believe. In no way does this drawing compel a conclusion involving worship.We'd need to know a lot more to determine whether this stick figure is worshiping this vaguely bovine outline. When is the artwork dated? Are there other cultural clues aside from this one drawing that would support the hypothesis that the culture worshiped cows? Where was the drawing found? Are there other drawings nearby that add relevant context?

...wow. I thought it was a scan of a photograph and had been smudged. I have been Poe'd.

See, that's why I don't go to Conservapedia, even for laughs. The stupid, combined with the irony and the fact that the article on Poe's Law could potentially be a Poe itself threatens to make my head explode.It's not worth the funnies. I like my head unexploded.