Ironically, the snark should have been a joke that went the other way, as Syphilis is thought to be a New World disease brought back by Columbus.
And I think @shaddack will back me up when I say no study is complete without a control group.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
But absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
It follows from Bayes’ Theorem.
It’s evidence of the absence of evidence but still not evidence of absence.
This is why we can’t not have nice things that aren’t there.
The League of Invisible Pink Unicorns agrees with this statement.
I seriously doubt they made her statue that anatomically correct.
Henceforth I’m calling it “Schrödinger’s Fleshlight”
[quote=“redesigned, post:32, topic:65356”] (quoting @gregmcph)
Just remember that every time you shake a guys hand, that hand has beaten off that guy many many times.
In most countries it is the same hand he’s wiped his ass with. Those fingers have been up his nose as well.
[/quote]
Ah, if only these wrists could talk… what unimaginably biological surfaces these things had been in contact with before and after this moment…
I stand by what I said. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
By “evidence” I mean anything that, when perceived by a rational person, will make that person consider a certain fact to be more likely than they would consider it without the evidence. Thus, evidence is not proof, and there can be evidence for statements that are in fact false.
When a certain act is very likely to leave evidence, then not finding that evidence is strong evidence that the act did not, in fact, occur.
When the act is unlikely to leave any evidence, then not finding that evidence is only weak evidence that the act did not occur.
But it is still evidence.
I just figured a patronising post deserved a patronising reply, and in turn you’ve added your own ,which I deserved, and the circle of life continues.
So. No action shots?
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.