ZeroMachine said:
SakSak said:
ZeroMachine said:
Without proof, everything is theory. Some things can be taken on pure idea, others cannot. It all relies heavily on the situation. Most situations require proof. Especially things in court, or else so many more innocents would be sent to prison.
What I will say is lack of proof of is not proof against. It simply means no proof has been found.
There is something to the contrary of this: If circumstances are such that proof has been searched for an extended time, by experts who could reasonably be expected to find some proof in less than this time period, using methods that have previously or could in theory find that proof, then we can hold this to be an indication that no proof will be found.
Most certainly absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but after a while is does become an indication of absence. And lacking any proof, as time goes an, this indication becomes stronger and stronger. It will never be proof, but can be used as a basis for decision making.
Problem is, every part of that logic is all about assumptions. This won't be the best example, but let's say that a person being accused of a crime has to find proof that it wasn't him, but his friend, who murdered three people. The judge says "you have one month to find proof". A month goes by and, although it was his former friend that committed the crime, he could find no proof. He is then sentenced to death. After his execution, proof is found, but the real criminal is nowhere to be found. Because of that logic, an innocent is dead and a dangerous murderer walks free, and probably kills again.
Like I said, not the best example, but do you see my point?
Yes, but there are several problems in this analogy.
Firtly, innocent until proven guilty. The person about to be executed would have a significant pile of evidence already against him.
Second, the person most likely is not an expert in crime investigation or detective work.
Thirdly, many murders go unsolved for years; A month is hardly a reasonable time period and might be a tight fit even for a full team of investigators with CSI support.
I understand your argument, and agree with it, to a point.
But think of this.
An archeologist makes a claim that Mesopotamian culture came as a migration of an equally advanced society from the upper Nile regions.
Now, no proof of this is found. In fact, no traces of this mystery civilization is found.
Certainly, the claim might be true and all traces might have succumbed to erosion /buried in ground.
After decades of searching, no expert has found anything. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But in this case we do have an indication that the claimant is wrong. And every year that passes with archeological digs within that area, the indication is stronger and stronger.
Do you now see my point?
Sometimes decisions have to be made without evidence or proof available. At this point, since no proof is to be had, indications begin to have more weight. Should proof be found later, then the situation is different. If some uncorrectable act has been made based on an indication that later was found to be false, that's though luck. In the case of your execution example however, there would have had to be plenty of evidence of his guilt and thus it does not fall under the case of no evidence at all.
