[Sca-cooks] garlic butter?

[Dan Phelps]

In reply to:

> >Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Was write:

> True. But a) it is still absence of proof, and there's no reason to
> adopt an innocent-until-proven guilty approach to an academic
> question (and, of course, there's also no reason not to, either ;-),
> except) b) that it still affects probability in that an existing
> phenomenon generally leaves a trace.

True but mundanely I'm in environmental regulation and thus generally
require the establishment of "reasonable assurance."  Be that as it may in
my line of work its occasionally obverse of the above, "guilty until proven
innocent."

Daniel Raoul
> _______________________________________________
> Sca-cooks mailing list
> Sca-cooks at ansteorra.org
> http://www.ansteorra.org/mailman/listinfo/sca-cooks