Great points I think you have made this much clearer for me and maybe I can refine what I am getting at.
Doesn’t plotting these statements out in the square of opposition take for granted that the propositions are in opposition? If they are, great, but my contention is that the two sentences are not speaking to each other.
If absence of evidence is evidence of absence then there is evidence.
If absence of evidence is not evidence of absence then there is no evidence.
Absence of evidence can not be both evidence and no evidence.
Therefore, absence of evidence in premiss 1 is not the same as absence of evidence in premiss 2.
If the meaning of absence of evidence in premiss 1 is used in 2 then premiss 2 is self-contradictory and vice versa.
If absence of evidence is sometimes evidence of absence and absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence then absence of evidence is contingent on evidence of absence?
Doesn’t making them particular support my idea that absence of evidence is given in two different ways?
Is my thinking that the ‘not’, in this case, is leading to a difference in definition and not denying something of ‘absence of evidence’ in the ‘is’ statement incorrect?
I am having trouble coming up with a set of sentences analogous to these. I’m led to believe that there is either something strange in the sentences themselves or, I fear, I have made a thorough demonstration of my stupidity. Or both!
Thanks in advance for your input. This discussion has inspired me to go back through the logic course and pay better attention this time.