OK. I fully take your point and do not disagree - except... what do you say when it's a situation where we know that (for instance) the Russians are lying about Ukraine having chemical weapons facilities, but (a) you can't prove it, (b) well, you could feasibly be seen to be embarrassingly wrong in the future, and (c) you are talking to the general public with their limited patience for nuance? What's a better phrase for "no evidence" that conveys the truth honestly, efficiently, and with the right amount of epistemic humility? I get that the Russian claim is itself extremely weak Bayesian evidence... but "extremely weak Bayesian evidence" is not really included in the common usage of the term "evidence" in the context of a public discussion is it?
I don't think they're actively malicious. I think they're too incompetent to be actively malicious.
OK. I fully take your point and do not disagree - except... what do you say when it's a situation where we know that (for instance) the Russians are lying about Ukraine having chemical weapons facilities, but (a) you can't prove it, (b) well, you could feasibly be seen to be embarrassingly wrong in the future, and (c) you are talking to the general public with their limited patience for nuance? What's a better phrase for "no evidence" that conveys the truth honestly, efficiently, and with the right amount of epistemic humility? I get that the Russian claim is itself extremely weak Bayesian evidence... but "extremely weak Bayesian evidence" is not really included in the common usage of the term "evidence" in the context of a public discussion is it?