[adiaireton8]

There are two worldviews:

1. The absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

2. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I go with #1 which is typical in physics and math.

These are not worldviews, since a worldview is a *comprehensive* view of the world, and these are very limited and specific claims.

One does not have to choose between #1 and #2 because whether #1 or #2 is true is situation-specific. Absence of evidence of x is evidence of the absence of x *only when* we have good reason to expect that if x is present, we would observe evidence of x. But when that condition is not met, then absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That is why the more sure and reliable principle is "absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence."

-A8

[Alamo-Girl]

One does not have to choose between #1 and #2 because whether #1 or #2 is true is situation-specific. Absence of evidence of x is evidence of the absence of x *only when* we have good reason to expect that if x is present, we would observe evidence of x. But when that condition is not met, then absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That is why the more sure and reliable principle is "absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence."

So you are in the gray area. Ergo you leave the door open to accept "just so" stories (and the opinion of experts) on par with evidence and proofs --- whereas I value them only one step above "imaginings."

No big deal. We're different creatures, part of God's magnificent living canvas - together we add contrast to an unfolding picture.

[Quix]

These are not worldviews, since a worldview is a *comprehensive* view of the world, and these are very limited and specific claims.
= = = =

Methinks that A-G is not well known or her words are not well comprehended by that perspective. She chooses her words well. They are accurate. Whether individual readers recognize that, or not . . . is a different issue.