The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
The subject of evidence is in the news because of President Donald Trump’s claim of voting fraud in the recent US Presidential election.
The Biden camp rejects Trump’s claim by saying that there is no evidence for electoral fraud. Even the BBC has repeated the claim that there is no evidence of electoral fraud.
How can anyone know that there is no electoral fraud? They may say that there is no evidence of widespread electoral fraud, but to say that there is none shows a person who can neither speak the truth nor care about the dogmatism of their statements.
This raises many matters:
- The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Let me remind you of the well-known difficulty of finding a needle in a haystack. It is difficult to prove a negative, that there is no needle in the haystack. But the Biden camp has no difficulty saying that there is no evidence. At least The Guardian uses the phrase ‘little evidence’.
- There is no evidence if you do not look for it, or look in the wrong place.
- The New York Times called the “officials in every state and found no evidence of voter fraud”. Who expected ‘officials’ to admit to voter fraud on their premises? Besides, how do they know what happened to the voters’ ballot papers before they arrived in their election machine? This is looking in the wrong place and shows us the quality of mainstream media investigation and modern journalism.
- The Biden camp says: you have produced no evidence, but who is ‘you’? There are multitudes of YouTube videos showing dead people having voted. Others were sent two ballots to their different names. Others were invited to send for ballots for dead people. There are reports of 100% voting for Biden in some postal batches. The truth or otherwise of these allegations is not the point, but are they not ‘evidence’? Is it only evidence when it is submitted to the law enforcement agencies or to a law court?
- This demonstrates that debate uses words about which there is no agreement on their definition – and no wonder as vocabulary is changing in this secular society with its shifting goalposts.
- It demonstrates the poverty of public debate, which is not debate but shouting down the other side in order to impose their will. In the 21st century, religions tend to debate. Not so the secularist. They are still in the 16th-century mode of thought and they want to impose their will.
- Yet secularism has added 20th-century Goebbels’ propaganda with the incessant repetition of the same message whatever are the responses.
- The unwillingness to change or clarify the narrative demonstrates the prejudice in public debaters. How often do you find people changing their mind as a result of public debate?
- It demonstrates the inability to tell the truth. “Truth has fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter’ Isa 59:14.
- As I write this, today at First Minister’s Questions Nicola Sturgeon called President Trump “the soon-to-be-former President of the United States”, showing that she could not bring herself to call him what he is, the President of the United States, and demonstrating her prophetic powers in addition to her medical prowess.
The inability to face the truth and to speak the truth is the price the population pays for the loss of Christian influence in public life. Regular readers of the Christian Bible learn the need to be careful how one interprets the words of Scripture, from which one may learn to be careful how to interpret words in ordinary conversation. However, even the vast majority of Christians in Scotland and about 45% of Americans “seldom or never read their Bibles”, and the effect of this is clearly seen in public life.