In the 20th century, it was popularised by a British cosmologist named Martin Rees and an American astrophysicist named Carl Edward Sagan. This aphorism helps people appreciate that human-to-human interventions are not exclusively binary, that life is not either black or white, a vast array of shades of grey exists and must not be ignored in favour of arbitrary pronouncements.
Lauren McNamara, an American YouTuber known as Zinnia Jones puts it in a slightly philosophical but perhaps more confusing manner, “the absence of evidence of absence is not evidence of the absence of absence.” In simple terms, the logic of ascribing absolute proof to the absence of evidence is flawed. The fact that for now, we do not have the evidence to support the existence of something does not translate to conclusive proof that it does not exist. Even after devoting time to diligently searching, owing to their imperfection, progressive and forward-thinking people would always reserve a sliver of potential for new discoveries that might shatter strongly held views on the absence of evidence.
Perhaps that is why the dispensation of justice in the courts of law is not only anchored on direct evidence but also on circumstantial evidence. The direct evidence of a single soul who claims to have witnessed the commission of a crime might not be as convincing as the cumulative effect of separate facts, which when put together, seem to definitively prove wrongdoing. Jay Thomas Looney, who was not a lawyer, but an English school teacher, crafted this view in an interesting manner, “A number of coincidences we regard as remarkable, a vast accumulation of extra-ordinary coincidences we accept as conclusive proof.” The law of evidence suggests that the courts of justice will not consider the absence of direct evidence as the absence of evidence. If the contrary applied, the streets would be swarming with criminals who would never be convicted.
For good reason, criminals cannot hide behind the pillar of the absence of evidence to prove their innocence, largely because compelling circumstantial evidence might expose them. But, what if circumstantial evidence is unavailable? Would it be acceptable to infer that the accused person did not commit the crime? Often the courts would not convict a defendant purely on the grounds of insufficient evidence. However, shrewd people know exactly what this means. It is not a pronouncement by the court that the accused person is innocent. Far from it! In fact, in environments where the prosecution team is incompetent or sloppy, when the judge cites insufficient evidence as the basis for deciding not to convict the accused person, it might be out of frustration owing to the slipshod performance by the prosecution team. If a more responsible and conscientious prosecution team had been assembled, probably the verdict would have been different.
Herein lies the nub of this article. In some cases, it would be counterintuitive for us to prevaricate our way out of hot water by playing the absence of evidence card. And yet, this is the card that some of our compatriots have adroitly played over the years. Consider a charming boss who is not known for sexually harassing junior female employees, but is in essence a premier league champion of sexual harassment. On this one day, he summons one of them to his office. The self-indulgent boss shows her a signed letter confirming her promotion and increased remuneration. But out of the blue, his voice vibrates with an air of raffishness as he lays out a bloodcurdling condition for handing the letter to his junior, the demand for sexual favours.
When the junior employee resolutely stands her ground and rebuffs attempts at compromising her morality, the overbold boss picks the letter and slowly shreds it into pieces. To the junior officer, the sound of each shredding feels like her arteries are being torn by a violent cyclopes. Despite attempts at composing herself, rivulets of tears coarse down her face. She finally musters the strength to stand up and stagger her way out of the monster’s office. The forbidding reality is that workplaces do have such kind of bosses.
Did sexual harassment take place? Yes, it did. Is there evidence of such? Yes, but only the direct evidence of the victim. Is the said evidence sufficient to play the consequence management card and hurl the rogue boss before a disciplinary committee or arraign him before a court of law? Not quite! Is there value in reporting the matter to the relevant department? Indeed! Why? Because revelling in the illusion of his invincibility, the self-assured unethical boss is likely to shoot himself in the foot by casting his net wide, his itching nether areas forcing him to confidently leap from one female officer to another. And when more victims report, a cumulative pattern of wrongdoing would no doubt put his professional capital and moral stature to the test, and though it might not hold water before a court of law, it would in time bring the rough-hewn boss’ wrongdoing into sharp focus and cast a negative shadow on him. In respectable jurisdictions, keen to stamp out such evil and send a cogent message, this might motivate the employer to institute an amicable way of parting company with the self-obsessed ‘bang a junior officer beast.’
The second and equally important reason is, once the nature of the beastly boss is known, this might equip potential victims with the ammunition to be hypervigilant with a view to quashing sexual harassment. For instance, when they are summoned to the boss’ office, they may take along a device that would enable them to record their conversation. This might be the only survivalist imperative to cling to. And when this is done responsibly, the rogue boss is likely to be exposed and punished. The message is loud and clear, in cases of sexual harassment, it might well be that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
Another common occurrence at the workplace is the issuance of inappropriate verbal instructions by senior officers, particularly when they ardently refuse to support them in writing. This phenomenon is especially rampant on issues of recruitment, favouritism and procurement, where paper trail would be akin to self-indictment. It gets worse when this is accompanied by awful grifterish and venal behaviour. Junior officers are always caught between a rock and a hard place. When they refuse to comply with the instruction from above, they are likely to be victimised for insubordination. At best, this might translate into being denied the promotion they are entitled to by virtue of performance, or being unfairly marked down during the performance appraisal with the sole intent of denying them a bonus they deserve. At worst, this could result in the amoral boss seeking to exploit any wafer-thin sliver of opportunity to fire the principled junior officer.
Not only that, punctilious internal or external auditors might pick up the unauthorised departure from board-sanctioned processes and hold the poor junior officer accountable for non-compliance. In cases of this nature, though they would still incur the wrath of their irresponsible supervisors, junior officers are better off navigating the barrier to ‘upsetting the applecart’ by sending an email message to the boss seeking confirmation of his instruction. If a written response is not received, the junior officer would be well within his right to ignore the verbal instruction. This would of course dent his relationship with his unprincipled boss, but he would derive the contentment that comes with an uncompromising fidelity to integrity. Again here, the absence of evidence of wrongdoing by the boss does not translate into the evidence of absence of wrongdoing. And this is not wordplay. It is serious stuff.
The principle captured in the maxim, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, applies to many facets of life where it might be difficult to piece together a list of ‘coincidences.’ On issues of corruption, spousal abuse, child abuse, sexual molestation in so-called platonic relationships, episodes of marital infidelity and abuse of authority, we all need to desist from viewing all rogues through a glass darkly. We always need to tread carefully before we confidently blurt out the words, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
