Changes

This fallacy is often associated with and best remembered by the phrase: "the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence."  However, sometimes, absence of evidence can be so overwhelming that it constitutes strong evidence of absence.  Such a situation arises when we have good reason to believe that the absent evidence would have been uncovered by now if it existed.  For example, since evidence of the existence of the [[Loch Ness Monster]] would surely have come to light by now, but has not done so, it is reasonable to assume that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist, i.e., that the [[null hypothesis]] is true.  In such cases, absence of evidence, while perhaps not conclusive, is strong evidence of absence.

This fallacy is often associated with and best remembered by the phrase: "the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence."  However, sometimes, absence of evidence can be so overwhelming that it constitutes strong evidence of absence.  Such a situation arises when we have good reason to believe that the absent evidence would have been uncovered by now if it existed.  For example, since evidence of the existence of the [[Loch Ness Monster]] would surely have come to light by now, but has not done so, it is reasonable to assume that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist, i.e., that the [[null hypothesis]] is true.  In such cases, absence of evidence, while perhaps not conclusive, is strong evidence of absence.

Another example from history. Assertions of evidence of corruption of Christian doctrine and [[Great Apostasy|apostasy]] from the faith is seen by Protestant and Fundamentalist [[Apologetics|apologists]] in the evident contrast of the 16th century doctrines of the Protestant Reformation, which the Reformers assert was original Christianity, against the clearly "Catholic doctrines" in the [[Ante-Nicene Fathers]] which refute them. The utter historical silence about any fundamental [[paradigm shift]] in doctrine after the first century is due to a total lack of any supporting extant evidence of Protestant or Mormon theology in any of the writings of the first four centuries of Christianity by any of the known heretics and sects. This very fact is argued by Protestants and Mormons as sure and certain evidence that a monstrous apostasy must have occurred, because there is no evidence that it ever did, and no evidence of their unmistakable doctrines can be found, leading them to the conclusion that there was a massive [[cover up]]. (This is also a form of [[circular reasoning]]. Compare [[Memory hole]] and [[Revisionism]].) More generally, assertion of a fact coupled with total absence of evidence does not prove there was a concerted effort involving total removal of the evidence supporting the assertion. The compelling weight of conclusive evidence supporting ''absence of any evidence of a removal of all evidence'' is strong evidence that no evidence was removed. Absence (silence) of evidence is not proof of evidence erased or made absent (silenced). Conclusive evidence of absence is absence of conclusive evidence. Compare [[Abductive reasoning]] and [[Confirmation bias]].

Another example from history. Assertions of evidence of corruption of Christian doctrine and [[Great Apostasy|apostasy]] from the faith is seen by Protestant and Fundamentalist [[Apologetics|apologists]] in the evident contrast of the 16th century doctrines of the Protestant Reformation, which the Reformers assert was original Christianity, against the clearly "Catholic doctrines" in the [[Ante-Nicene Fathers]] which refute them. The utter historical silence about any fundamental [[paradigm shift]] in doctrine after the first century is due to a total lack of any supporting extant evidence of Protestant or Mormon theology in any of the writings of the first four centuries of Christianity by any of the known heretics and sects. This very fact is argued by Protestants and Mormons as sure and certain evidence that a monstrous apostasy must have occurred, because there is no evidence that it ever did, and no evidence of their unmistakable doctrines can be found, leading them to the conclusion that there was a massive [[cover up]]. (This is also a form of [[circular reasoning]]. Compare [[Memory hole]] and [[Revisionism]].)  

 

More generally, assertion of a fact coupled with total absence of evidence does not prove there was a concerted effort involving total removal of the evidence supporting the assertion. The compelling weight of conclusive evidence supporting ''absence of any evidence of a removal of all evidence'' is strong evidence that no evidence was removed. Absence (silence) of evidence is not proof of evidence erased or made absent (silenced). Conclusive evidence of absence is absence of conclusive evidence. Compare [[Abductive reasoning]] and [[Confirmation bias]].

A particular form of the argument from silence is the ''argument from personal incredulity,'' which takes the form "I cannot believe/understand/explain ''P;'' therefore, not-''P.''"  For example, someone who does not understand why [[God]] would condemn [[homosexuality]] or condemn sinners to eternal [[hell]] may commit this fallacy and conclude that the relevant Bible passages should be [[Cafeteria Christianity|rejected]].  Another particular form is the [[black-swan fallacy]].

A particular form of the argument from silence is the ''argument from personal incredulity,'' which takes the form "I cannot believe/understand/explain ''P;'' therefore, not-''P.''"  For example, someone who does not understand why [[God]] would condemn [[homosexuality]] or condemn sinners to eternal [[hell]] may commit this fallacy and conclude that the relevant Bible passages should be [[Cafeteria Christianity|rejected]].  Another particular form is the [[black-swan fallacy]].