Complete lack of evidence is itself evidence against something. If there's no evidence, then it isn't so.

If I say there is a sunflower growing out of your head, but it is 100% undetectable by any means, will you say "ok, maybe", or will you say "no"? If there is no evidence at all, then why would you concede? If 0 evidence = maybe, then where does having some evidence put you? Still in maybe? How can you prove a negative in that case? How can you prove a positive?

And where is your proof that trees exist? Because some synapses in your brain tell you so? Surely you don't trust your brain enough to allow it to be the arbiter of truth do you? They are forever stuck in "maybe" because in lieu of ABSOLUTE proof we can never be sure, in the same way that in complete absence of proof we can never be sure. If you think maybe is the default position, then surely maybe is the only position (for anything that can't be proven with pure mathematics/is axiomatic).


Of course, no one is saying that isn't true.

GnilRettemHC, no prove and absolute proof are two different things. You don't have to make the statements about them contrary. Absence of proof is not negative proof, so, proof against something, because that would be the contrary.
Absence of proof is a neutral position and has to be dealt with like that- neutral.

I do agree with you partially, but I just don't think that always having absolute positions is the right way.

Imagine a rape victim claiming that he got raped and he is unable to get evidence about time, who the perpetrator was and so on, maybe because he repressed the memory of that or maybe that persons drink was drugged.
Of course it's innocent until proven guilty, but applying your logic there is no need to prove that the perpetrator is guilty, because there is no evidence yet and so there will never be.
"In the complete absence of evidence the correct position is negative." is what you said.

In that case, we have only a small amount of unreliable evidence (the accuser's testimony). On a scale from negative to affirmative, this puts our position just to the right of negative - "probably not". If we then got a toxicology report showing memory altering drugs, this moves the position closer to the middle into "maybe" territory. With more evidence we can slide either way (testimony of friend saying the accuser was taking those drugs because of an inflamed liver, CCTV camera showing the accuser being lead away by a stranger, etc). But until you have some evidence, you shouldn't lean towards affirmative at all.

If you were to begin at "maybe" then you are essentially saying that proposing an idea is enough to make it as likely to be true as it is to be untrue.

"there is no need to prove that the perpetrator is guilty, because there is no evidence yet and so there will never be"
This is completely untrue and I never implied such a thing. Having 0 evidence makes the idea unsupported, but once there is evidence the idea may be even less supported, or will become supported. If the perp produced undeniable proof that they were not in the country at that time, then that would solidify the negative position.

Your position should reflect what evidence you have at the time, not speculation about what evidence you may get one day. It is perfectly acceptable to have your starting position as negative, and then when affirmative evidence is produced, move your position thusly.

""In the complete absence of evidence the correct position is negative." is what you said."
Yes, I said that. "That could be true" is not the same as "that is true", without evidence an idea is unsupported. Do not confuse potential or imagined evidence with actual evidence. If the idea is very plausible then you might even be inclined to take a very tentative negative position, but unless there is some evidence it is just absurd to conceed.