> META discussion of theory -- names not needed, no lookups needed. > > All right, let's say, just for the sake of having somewhere to > start, that Absence of proof is not proof of absence. > > At what stage can one legitimately claim that absence of evidence is > proof of the absence of proof? > > I mean, at what stage are we allowed to be reasonable about it? > > ... > > Cheryl Singhals Well, sooner or later you may conclude that what evidence you have is "good enough". You just have to remember that it is not absolutely proven and you might in future in the light of new evidence have to change your mind. I suppose you are really asking how one can judge that the "good enough" point has been reached. There is no simple answer to that (sorry), although other replies might elaborate some ideas. Regards Peter Peter J Seymour <[email protected]>