Why is this the case? Wouldn’t a lack of evidence hint at, but not necessarily prove that this could be the case?
In: Biology
Let’s start with another aphorism: where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
The meaning there is pretty clear; if you see smoke, that’s evidence of there being fire, because nothing else causes smoke.
But, what if there’s no smoke? Does that mean there’s no fire? Well, it can mean that, but it isn’t by itself proof. Maybe it’s a clean fire, or it’s a windy day, or maybe you are looking in the wrong direction.
That’s where your expression comes in. It’s a reminder that just because you don’t have evidence of something, isn’t proof that the something isn’t there.
Where it gets tricky is that sometimes absence is evidence, but that’s because it’s linked to something else — “there is no forest fire here And I know that because if these particular treed were burning they’d made smoke” is a very different statement then “there is no fire in town because I don’t see smoke right now.”
Latest Answers