Do you concur with the Statement that states that the " Absence of Evidence is not an Evidence of Absence?

In the " Argument from Ignorance " ( Appeal to Ignorance ) , also known as Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam , which is an Informal Logical Fallacy , the Statement in question ( The Absence of Evidence is not an Evidence of Absence ) is used as some sort of a Short Hand Rebuttal to one of the Propositions of the Former ( Appeal to Ignorance ) , which goes along this line that a " Proposition is considered False if it has not been proven , & , it can not be , therefore , considered True " . The Absence of Evidence comes in & says that if there's no Evidence that something is True , that does not mean that it's False ( Prop1 ) , & , vice verse , if there's no Evidence that something is False , that does not mean that it's True ( Prop2 ) . This kind of split approach ( Dichotomy ) to such Argument is somewhat misleading , because it simply rules out or excludes a third logical option or alternative that rejects this binary outlook , which states that due to the fact that no sufficient Information & Data is available , A Proposition is yet NOT proven either to be True or False ( Prop3 ) . Some say that ( Argument from Ignorance ) is sometimes used as a tool to shift the " Burden of Proof " in Debates , & , others said that such Arguments simply ignore the fact that some True things in life may never ever be proven as such , & , some other False Things may never ever be , with absolute certainty , proved as such ( Disapproved as False ) . And others , such Carl Sagan , strongly stated that the " Absence of Evidence is not an Evidence of Absence " should not be construed as one , at any point in time , can never obtain & attain an Evidence that certain Something or a Thing does not exist . Because simply put , it can happen . ( & That's the way it goes ) .