system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
What judgment should I make when I encounter claims that have neither supporting evidence nor counterevidence?

Suppose someone claims that a unicorn exists, and there is no evidence for or against the existence of a unicorn, what should a rational thinker do in such scenario?

Should one suspend judgment? Or should one reason that the claim is more likely to be false since it is a better explanation in terms of simplicity?
gpt
A lot of the time, there is more evidence than you might think. For instance, unicorns are not small animals. If they existed, it is highly likely that zoologists would have found and documented their existence. The fact that this has not happened is evidence against the existence of unicorns. It's not an airtight proof obviously, but it is evidence. Other forms of evidence can come from our knowledge of how organisms evolve and whether a particular evolutionary outcome is likely.

If there really isn't evidence either way, you should withhold judgement as someone else pointed out above. But you often have more evidence than you think.