[Alamo-Girl]

Er, if I may ...

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.

The second is more typical of the historical sciences, e.g. evolution, anthropology, archeology and Egyptology.

And of course the same two worldviews apply to theology. Again, I go with #1.

[Alamo-Girl]

Rats, I should have added that the complaint the #1s have about the #2s worldview is that it results in "just so" stories whereas the #1s point to evidence.

The #2s protest that their field does not allow for evidence without absence because it is a quantization of a continuum - pieces of evidence here and there from which they derive a continuum (connect the dots).

My #1 worldview is reflected in my personal epistemology by ranking the opinions of experts as 11^th of 12.

I suspect you have a rather low value for the opinions of experts as well, Quix.

[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

[Quix]

Er, if I may ...

You not only may but are humbly requested to into my life, as long as I live.

Of course . . . I may not always jump 100% on your bandwagon! LOL.

The rest of the post, greatly agree with.