Absence of Evidence

The phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" has always bugged me. We throw it around all the time but I'm not sure we're using it correctly.If there is no evidence for something where there should be something if the something existed, then that is evidence that the thing does not exist.In a science context wiki gives the example of drug research "Evidence of absence and absence of evidence are similar but distinct concepts. This distinction is captured in the aphorism "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." [...] Despite what the expression may seem to imply, a lack of evidence can be informative. For example, when testing a new drug, if no harmful effects are observed then this suggests that the drug is safe.[3] This is because, if the drug were harmful, evidence of that fact can be expected to turn up during testing. The expectation of evidence makes its absence significant.[4]"When it does apply is when we've not actually looked for the evidence or not looked properly, then it's simply an argument from ignorance. The argument from ignorance for "absence of evidence" is not necessarily fallacious, for example, that a potentially life-saving new drug poses no long-term health risk unless proved otherwise. On the other hand, were such an argument to rely imprudently on the lack of research to promote its conclusion, it would be considered an informal fallacy whereas the former can be a persuasive way to shift the burden of proof in an argument or debate.[6]Personally, I find the lack of evidence for an interventionist god where we should find such evidence - such as payer works, miracles happen, god changes the bread and wine into his body and blood at the eucharist, god loves me etc - actually is evidence founded on absence.Evidence of absence - Wikipedia.

The problem with that kind of wording is that we don't have complete knowledge of anything. So if we wish, we can push it into the absurd.But we do have a lot of knowledge about a lot of stuff now and I think it's safe to say, for example, that if dowsing worked there would be good and sufficient evidence available to show it. Instead there is good evidence that when formally tested under scientific conditions detection is no better than random.I think at that point we form a conclusion that the absence of evidence is enough to say that dowsing is bollocks. All provisional of course, but as near to certain as we ever get.
​ In these sort of cases we do know the extent of what we should see with the technology we have. It wasn't just that there was absence of evidence there was also the absence of our ability to detect it so we could say nothing about it at all. Agreed.I think rather more persuasive is the argument that if such a character as Jesus actually did all the things he's supposed to have done - been executed by the Romans for it, risen from the dead and caused earthquakes etc etc - we should expect there to be reports of them from those whose writings we do have. We don't have them. It's not conclusive proof, not even close, but it is evidence of absence that can be added to other evidence if we were forced into a binary decision based on the balance of probabilities.

What I was meaning was that there were highly literate historians and diarists alive during those times and in that location whose work we have but who did not mention Jesus or those events.
​ Mostly it was a lot of different prophets doing the same apocalyptic riffs and a few of their fantastical stories being picked/fabricated many years after the "fact".

You did a great job finding that post!

Historians wrote about whatever was going on at the time. There was no threat to anyone, when alive he was just another loony talking end-world stuff. Christianity came much later. I did not say that you were dishonest. I suspect you mean someone else.

Why not learn? Start with an online critical thinking course.

Well good luck luck with it Phat.