[tsimionescu]

It should be noted that absence of proof is evidence for absence. And since in the physical sciences, unlike mathematics, actual proof of absence is impossible, absence of evidence (after thorough searches) is the best we've got to form a belief for absence of the phenomenon.

That is, we believe, very strongly, that it's impossible for two masses to repel each other gravitationally, for example, but we will never have actual proof it's impossible.

None of this to say that it's irrational to believe in a brain microbiome despite this search seeming fruitless, as there are good a priori arguments for expecting one to exist.

[KineticLensman]

> It should be noted that absence of proof is evidence for absence.

Exactly. Like the apocryphal small chocolate teapot orbiting the Earth

[pvaldes]

But evidence of absence is, and in this case we have a lot.

For the last 400 years, pathologists on every country had filleted and put, lets say tens thousands of human brains and human guts under the microscope. One of them has systematically a microbiome, easy to see. The other don't, except when is diseased or rotten. The sample token here is huge, maybe millions.

If we would had searched 400 years for this chocolate teapot without finding it, we could conclude with a solid suspicion that there is not such thing.

This is very different than just saying "I don't think that there is bacteria in the brain but I never searched for it". All pathology science is based in searching for it. We created gram staining dyes, scanners, tags, gold coated plates for electronic microscopes, DNA analysis... exactly for that.

If there really is a microbiome living in each healthy brain, we should have found it 150 years ago.

[tsimionescu]

> For the last 400 years, pathologists on every country had filleted and put, lets say tens thousands of human brains and human guts under the microscope. One of them has systematically a microbiome, easy to see. The other don't, except when is diseased or rotten. The sample token here is huge, maybe millions.

Is that really the case? By my understanding of the article, we find plenty of bacteria whenever we look at human brain samples. The problem is that it's very hard to tell if that bacteria was already present in the brain, or if it got in through the process of cutting the brain open (especially by contamination with other tissues), or if it was indeed present before the procedure, but only because the individual was very old or had a disease.

[vlovich123]

Yeah exactly. It’s not an unreasonable search and we don’t have confidence our search methods work. Hell, the Ryugu sample was contaminated while in a hermetically sealed clean room filled with nitrogen gas. Either the blood brain barrier is even more effective or maybe the story isn’t quite so clear. This is not an unreasonable hypothesis nor do have we exhausted search. Hell, we’re literally talking about it in response to a related find in another species. So it’s definitely not a wild theory or one that conflicts with known theories.

The chocolate teapot example is a non sequiter as it fails both Occam’s razor and the principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence not to mention that it wouldn’t follow any laws of known science and it’s existence very well would upend quite a few of those. The scientific method isn’t something you get to apply piecemeal.

[rapjr9]

Unfortunately many people claim an absence of evidence _without_a_thorough_search_ is evidence of absence. As in "I have haven't seen it so it must not exist". Many people who are experts do this. There needs to be some new terminology here, just saying "there is no evidence" is meaningless, people need to start saying "there is no evidence after <these> kinds of searches" to qualify their statements. Like "I haven't seen any evidence, but I haven't really looked", or "I asked some of my collegues and none had seen any relevant papers", or "I did a PubMed search and found no papers on that topic", or "I did a PubMed search and found 10 low quality studies that showed no evidence of that". Otherwise it is completely reasonable to interpret "there is no evidence" as "I don't know".