evidence of absence

[nanda chandran]

>Please note that absence of evidence is not evidence of
>absence.

Sure, but it is not evidence for presence either.

>All text/oral traditions are valuable for what they say and not for what
>they omit. Rgveda doen not mention common salt. If the dark barked,it was
>there. But if the dog did not bark, one is left wondering whether the bark
>was missing or the dog itself.

If common salt is not mentioned in the Rg Veda, then the
correct position would be to be neutral about it and
not speculate about its existance or non-existance.

Likewise if the dog didn't bark, it is best to be silent
about it rather than speculate whether the dog existed
or not, the reasons why it didn't bark, whether it had
lost its voice or its interest in barking etc

Ofcourse you can wonder, but why try to make facts out
of your speculation?
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com