> The absence of evidence isn’t proof of absence. It is, however, evidence. The absence of evidence for black swans doesn’t mean there are no black swans, but it does mean that a theory proposing most swans are black is probably wrong.

Um, the author seems a little confused. Absence of evidence ... is evidence? Excuse me, but no. Absence of evidence means you have insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion which would be favored by the evidence.

Riffing on the black swan example: if someone claims that black swans existed, and someone else is skeptical, the onus is on the pro-black-swan side to provide evidence. The onus is not on the black swan skeptic to believe them.

However, there is a difference between the skeptic saying "I am unconvinced" and "therefore black swans (probably) do not exist." Failing to agree is not the same as strongly disagreeing.