>>9539945>There's no such notion of "support" in a probability space, an event is just that, an event.Again, we are not arguing over the definition of evidence, we are arguing over the definition of A is evidence for B. So if there is no notion of support in a probability space, then you have invalidated your own interpretation.
But in fact we do see the notion of support in Bayesian inference:
>That is, if the model were true, the evidence would be more likely than is predicted by the current state of belief.Which is equivalent to P(B|A) > P(B)
>As in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference#Formal_explanation, you update your probability P(B) to P(B|E) based on evidence E, without any necessary reference to P(B|not E).Under that definition there cannot ever be an absence of evidence, since the absence of one conditional is the presence of its complement. Therefore this has nothing to do with the phrase "absence of evidence is evidence of absence."
