Hello, I came across your Blog accidentally, and noticed your statement that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". That is odd to me: I always thought the platitude was "absence of proof is not proof of absence". This latter formulation is of course correct, but I think your formulation is misleading. Absence of evidence can certainly be taken as evidence of absence - just not indefeasible evidence (or 'proof'), of course. Just a quibble, and I'm sure everyone has moved on to other topics anyway...