Absence of evidence counts as evidence only when a competent, resourced search was conducted

Evidence

New drugs are tested for safety. The absence of any toxic effect is taken to be evidence. When a security investigation reveals no instances of improper conduct, it would be wrong to conclude that the investigation left us ignorant. … Professors Copi and Burgess-Jackson suggest that the following factors be kept in mind: (a) How many individuals are attempting the proof; (b) whether those individuals are experts, or at least competent, on the matter at hand; (c) whether those attempting the proof are motivated (have an incentive) to prove the matter; (d) whether those attempting the proof have the technology and other resources necessary to conduct the inquiry and make the proof; (e) for how long a time the individuals have tried to prove the proposition. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1079

Categorization

  • QUESTION: Worth chasing: how do courts operationalize the Copi/Burgess-Jackson factors (competence, incentive, duration) when deciding whether a search was genuinely exhaustive?
  • XREF: The five factors map directly onto Daubert reliability criteria for scientific testimony and adversarial burden-shifting in civil discovery. — connects to: Circumstantial evidence cannot support legal liability when resting entirely on speculation — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 237; The administrative cribbing of reports determined which event readings became evidence; Scarcity of evidence on African women philosophers reflects neglect, not absence of contribution (+2 more)
  • corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1079

Broader Connections