>>11228509>Yes, what is your point? Ignoring evidence (such as missing evidence for X) will not help you do that.my point is that you use evidence to give more weight to a claim, and you simply can NOT use lack of evidence as evidence of non-existence of something... lawyers and other non-scientific professionals do use that because they either confuse absolute proofs with theories to establish a judicial truth, or assume that they can't absolutely PROVE or DENY anything in the context of a trial, they can only establish reasonable hypotheses of truth or falseness of given claims.
>So if I flip a coin, there is no probability that "the coin landed on heads" is true or false?the fuck does flipping a coin has to do with the existence, or not, of something?
