-
Absence of evidence is not evidence for something.
Yes, and correlation does not equal causation.
But eventually reason breaks down if reason isn't accepted as a response to anything at all.
One just ends up in a metaphysical circle jerk, it may be satisfying but it doesn't achieve a great deal.
Velocio-
I think you've misunderstood my post. There was a study conduced by the New Statesmen which looked at referendum coverage leading up to the vote (a link to which I posted earlier today). It shows that the Tories were disproportionately covered despite heavy campaigning by Labour (and even Corbyn!). Their point is that this prevented perspectives from the Left to be made widely known to potential voters, and instead, voters made decisions based on Tory arguments which one may understand traditional Labour supporters having issues with. However, it also means that the general sense that they/he didn't campaign (and thus was essentially supporting Leave) is not true but a impression from skewed reporting.
That is, my post was not meant as an argument or anything. I was just drawing your attention to this before we got into another "Labour/Corbyn should have campaigned more!" argument.
Take a look at the New Statesman article I posted a couple pages back. Absence of evidence is not evidence for something.