If we treat the “is” in Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence as an “implies” (which it seems to me to be) and then apply modus tollens to it, we get “if you don’t have evidence of absence, you don’t have absence of evidence” and it is precisely this bullshit that Zvi is calling. If you have evidence of absence, say so.
No. The “is” in that doesn’t mean “implies”. The “is evidence of” means “implies”.
Modus tollens then gives you “if you don’t have absence, you don’t have absence of evidence”, which is not subject to the semantic tricks in the post.
No. The “is” in that doesn’t mean “implies”. The “is evidence of” means “implies”.
Modus tollens then gives you “if you don’t have absence, you don’t have absence of evidence”, which is not subject to the semantic tricks in the post.