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
So, you’re more right than you’d think.
The reason we say this is because from a formal logical standpoint (where we try to ground debates) it is true – you can never *really* prove that something doesn’t exist, because it’s impossible to look *absolutely everywhere* and categorically rule out it existing anywhere.
But when you look at it from a more probabilistic model, if we’ve been searching for something for a very long time and have been unable to find it, that’s at least some weak evidence that it doesn’t exist (or at least that it doesn’t exist in any sense that we can perceive, in which case it’s like it doesn’t exist).
Latest Answers