> "Brian D Harper" wrote:
> >When I think of lack of evidence in a scientific setting
> >I'm thinking mainly of two possibilities:
> >1) There is a particular piece of evidence which would really
> >bolster a theory were it available. Unfortunately, it is not.
> >2) The theory makes a specific prediction that such and such
> >evidence should be found in such and such a fashion. But this
> >evidence is not found.
> >How would you define these two "lack of evidence" situations
> >using your terminology?
> Both are clearly cases of negative evidence, since we lack positive
> evidence that would support the theory, but we do not have any
> evidence that refutes the theory either.
I don't see how 2) is a "clear case of negative evidence"!! If a
theory makes a specific prediction that such and such evidence should
be found in such and such a fashion --- but the evidence is not there
--- then the theory has been falsified! This "lack of evidence" then
constitutes _positive_evidence_ against the theory.
"They told me I was gullible ... and I believed them!"