|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 6, 2020 1:37:29 GMT
Actually, the example he cites is a good one. If you search every home in a neighborhood and find no evidence of a murderer, that is, indeed, evidence the murderer is not in that neighborhood. No it isn't. Or at least, it is equally evidence that you didn't search well enough, that one of the searchers is the murderer and didn't rat himself out, or any one of a number of other things. Yes it is, and I explained why. At this point you're just arguing with math. That there are other explanations for finding no evidence (didn't search well enough, researcher is murderer, etc.) doesn't make it not evidence, it makes it not proof. It still lowers the probability (one can argue how much) of the hypothesis that the murderer is in the neighborhood.
|
|
