[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.

[1000 silverlings]

"ergo" is kinda cool tho.

[adiaireton8]

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."

A "just so" story is an imaginary but entirely speculative explanation of some event or phenomenon. We should reject "just so" stories, ceteris paribus, because there is no evidence that they are true. But that does not mean that personal testimony is therefore unreliable or non-evidential. The notion that we must choose between accepting "just so" stories and personal testimony is a false dilemma. A personal testimony is evidence, and its strength depends on the character and credibility of the speaker.

-A8