>>12898862>My colleague literally studies Pluto for a living, so I know what I am talking about on that front.How does this respond to anything I said?
>I am not confusing evidence with proof.You are, since your question implies that simply having some evidence of an absence of meteor fragments means that we would confidently say there is an absence. Of course you need to take all evidence into account, not just one small piece of evidence, and even then you may not be confident in the result.
>You are not putting forth a reasonable argument in favor of OP's point of view.Correct. There is no need to since you didn't even attack OP's argument, you just attacked a misinterpretation of his conclusion. OP's argument is a simple mathematical proof. Really the only thing you can attack are his definitions, but you failed to even do that.
What I put forth was an explanation of what you misunderstood. You claim that there is an absence of evidence of evidence of meteor fragments but then you claim that there is a high probability of them. Why? Because your first claim is wrong. There is plenty of evidence, things which increase the probability of meteor fragments on Pluto, they just aren't things you need to travel to Pluto for.
