[Sca-cooks] garlic butter?

[Terry Decker]

>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

Innocence or guilt are for the courtroom, not for the investigation.  A lack
of evidence makes a hypothesis questionable.  Opposing evidence usually
kills it.  However, when you have solid evidence that something has
occurred, a lack of evidence can tell you something about the scope of the
occurrence.

While there appears to be no evidence for garlic butter, how were aquapatys
eaten?

Bear