answer:Criminal convictions (at least in the US) are a binary thing: guilty or not guilty. No shading. So a jury that returns a “not guilty” verdict has reasonable doubt about the charge (the exact charge that they’re given by the judge prior to deliberation) as it applies to the defendant. It doesn’t mean “we don’t think he did it”. It can even mean “we think he did the act, but we don’t think he had the intent that has been ascribed to make it the exact charge that was given” (such as first degree murder, for example). So that’s a special case. In other cases, and let’s take religion (since the thread would have gone there soon enough anyway), you can’t say that just because there’s no clear evidence of God that that’s proof that there isn’t one. (I know, some do, but I think they have looser ideas of Truth than I do.) So I can’t say, “Since you haven’t proven the case for God, then I declare that there is no God.” That would be a refutation of a bad argument with an equally bad assertion on the other side.