Absence of evidence doesn’t necessarily mean evidence of absence

I came across this concept in the book, Antifragile and then in the book, This will make you smarter. I guess it means that we should be able to see the invisible truths around us. It is also, one way to see the world as it is a.k.a ‘Prajna‘.

While you may want to disbelieve what’s happening around you, that won’t make it go away, and what’s “around you” is now a much larger sphere than it ever was before. If you haven’t figured out how to discern the invisible stuff that’s true from the invisible stuff that’s a trick, you’re helpless in a world where just about every decision we make has to do with things that are invisible. Thus, two kinds of serious errors: believing in invisible things that aren’t true, or insisting that the truth might not be. They’re caused by fear, by deliberate misinformation and by being uninformed.Eight things you’ve probably never seen with your own eyes: Buzz Aldrin, the US debt,

Eight things you’ve probably never seen with your own eyes: Buzz Aldrin, the US debt, multi-generational evolution of mammals, an atom of hydrogen, Google’s search algorithm, the inside of a nuclear power plant, a whale and the way your body digests a cookie. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist, nor does it mean you can’t find a way to make them useful.

At some point, in order to move forward, we have to accept that truth can’t be a relative concept, something to use when it suits our agenda but be discarded when we’re frightened or want to score a point.

Richard Feynman said, “I don’t know what’s the matter with people: they don’t learn by understanding, they learn by some other way — by rote or something. Their knowledge is so fragile!”

Merely because it’s invisible doesn’t mean it’s true–or false.

Is it a skill to figure out what’s true, even if it’s invisible? I think it is, and a rare and valuable one.