[jon_smark]

Sorry to nitpick, but for a good Bayesian, absence if evidence is evidence of absence. If you want the aphorism to be technically correct, you should say "absence of proof is not proof of absence".

A note on the terminology: "evidence" is a piece of data that suggests a conclusion, while not being conclusive by itself. Whereas "proof" is a piece of data that is conclusive by itself.

[sgt101]

For a long time my wife refused to accept that Tree Kangaroos existed and insisted that I'd made them up. When the internet came along she looked them up and treated me strangely for a while.

What things that you have never seen do you not believe in?

[YeGoblynQueenne]

(not the OP) Giant isopods. They're not real. I know there are pictures of what are supposed to be giant isopods but they are not real animals, instead they're clearly fake models of made-up animals.

Look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_isopod#/media/File:Bathy...

Clearly some kind of plastic model. I mean its eyes are gleaming menacingly. Or look at this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_isopod#/media/File:Giant...

Seriously, wikipedia? Seriously? That's clearly a hoax.

Giant isopods are. not. real.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

A proof is a "piece of data"? Oh boy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

tl;dr: not a piece of data.