>>9307893>It's not absurd, all evidence of something is not evidence of something else. You have not responded to this.
But evidence of something is still evidence, hence can't not be evidence at the same time. You have not responded to this.>"It does follow that ~E is evidence for ~X"
That was not the conclusion of your "proof". >~E is the absence of E, which is the absence of evidence of X.
Incorrect, ~E is the evidence of absence of X. Ignoring this doesn't make it go away.>Then my proof is a thought experiment. Semantic waste of time.
Calling your "proof" a thought experiment is seriously pushing the boundaries of reasonable.>Don't be obtuse.
Your entire argument hinges on an imaginary "proof" that has not been given.>Non-responsive. Is evidence of your age also evidence of life on Mars? Yes or no?
No, but it is evidence. Hence has nothing to do with an absence of evidence since evidence is present.>I quoted you admitting it, it's proven true.
See above.>This is not an argument, just circular reasoning.
There's nothing circular about it, you led yourself to a contradiction hence your "proof" gets thrown out.>If it's been derived then it can be proven easily.
It has been, by yourself (see above).>Prove that P(~X|E) =< P(~X) if P(X|E) > P(X) or admit you're wrong.
Simply apply your reasoning that led to the contradiction, I shouldn't need to hold your hand through such elementary manipulations.>We are not talking other evidence of life on Mars.
Then no conclusion can be drawn.>The absence of evidence of life on Mars is evidence that there is no life on Mars.
There is no absence of evidence, plenty of evidence of absence has been fathered.