I think the instinctual response to that argument should be an request to quantify the evidence.
If someone says “Bayesian evidence” they should provide real numbers.
If there weak Bayesian evidence for one side of the issue and no evidence for the other side that means in total the issue is undecided and both sides can be true.
Another Fully General Argument:
“It’s not proof, but it’s weak Bayesian evidence.”
I think the instinctual response to that argument should be an request to quantify the evidence. If someone says “Bayesian evidence” they should provide real numbers.
No, that’s a perfectly good argument unless your opponent can provide stronger evidence in the other direction.
Arguments are not resolved by seeing who can pile it higher and deeper. Not everything that is claimed to be evidence is.
If there weak Bayesian evidence for one side of the issue and no evidence for the other side that means in total the issue is undecided and both sides can be true.
That isn’t really fully general because not everything is evidence in favor of your conclusion. Some things are evidence against it.
It is fully general at least in the sense that it admits a weak response which at the same time simulates compromise and weaking the other position.