What is your definition of "evidence"?

Post Reply New Topic

Oh, wait - I didn't catch the joke until now.....

Grrr. Stupid to edit a spelling mistake when you've quoted yourself....

That sounds rather more like the Cheschire cat. Schrodinger's cat simply becomes one way or the other once you look at it.

Good point. I picked Schodinger's cat because it changes. But Cheshire disappears entirely. I like it!

Evidence is:

Any material substance or causal event that irrefutably and repeatedly demonstrates the validity of a claim.

Evidence is not:

1) Imaginary, hypothetical, or ideological - this leave out subjective impressions and religious dogma.
2) Immeasurable or without measurable qualities - this leaves out memories, thoughts, and ideas.
3) Indistinct, symbolic, or metaphorical - this leaves out literary works, interpreted signs, and vague descriptions.
4) Intangible, mythical, or unreal - this leaves out fictional agents and forces.

If gods and deities do not exist, why are they so universally essential to human thought? I defy you to find a culture lacking any sense of the divine supernatural.

Some people have a knack for story-telling, while others are easily fooled.


Every culture seems to have its myths, and plenty of gullible fools to believe in them.

There is a bit of an issue here, evidence, if used in the legal sense, very rarely is comprised of your definition. For instance, circumstantial evidence is not irrefutable and does not demonstrate, it only leads to logical inference. As well, given that court cases can be overturned, death penalties turned aside, etc, it seems that even in cases where a high level of rectitude is necessary, evidence, as you define it, is not available.

Not only that, but to be honest, when police are searching for evidence, do you think that they are doing so based upon your definition, or based upon the definition of looking for something that has data related to the case? I would say merely the latter rather than the absolutism of your notion.

Finally, instances of your notion are incredibly rare, as can be noted in death penalties being overturned, and as well, given the various skeptical claims against all knowledge that have to be shunted to the side when accepting any knowledge. To be honest, I do not think your definition of evidence has very much realism.


So, if I stab somebody in a crowd of people, and everybody sees me, however, I leave no hairs, fingerprints, footprints, or anything else like that. Does that mean there is no evidence that I stabbed somebody? I think not. Witnesses are often used as evidence in courts of law.

Let's say that there are 4 possible killers, one is a poet. The killer leaves poems, and vague descriptions at the crime scene that are similar to the works of the poet, and use knowledge that only the poet knows. Wouldn't that count as evidence? What if a logical argument is included in a literary work? Or a hypothetical example as a counterpoint to a particular notion, wouldn't that count as evidence? Let's say that I am arguing against utilitarianism, and I reference Brave New World or Fahrenheit 451, literary works as to how utilitarianism is flawed for not accounting other human values, is that improper?

Now, I am not going to reference the other 2 groups that you claim cannot be evidence, partially because I need to better refine my views of those 2 categories as to make a consistent set of ideas including them and that addressed how you mean them. By my own notion of evidence, I think I can come up with ideas that include groups 1 and 4 though.

Well, in this case, witness accounts are sometimes unreliable, because of confusion from their part, shock from the event, unable to remember well the aspects or changing things, unintentional from their memory, perhaps even prejudice, etc.
There have been cases when prisoners are freed because of DNA evidence after they were previously convicted based on witness accounts.

Oh yeah, witness accounts can be unreliable. Memories are fallible. The issue is whether or not they can constitute evidence though. Traditionally they do.

just a point here: all those different cultures and myths are saying all the other ones are going to hell (metaphorically, not literally the christian hell) and they all have different gods.

maybe music is god....music is univerally essential to human thought and is present throughout back before civilization.

....or it's just an excuse and a BS example.


extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. people doing similar but different things isn't extraordinary and is seen throughout different aspects of culture. i mean just look at the ancient greeks where the different ancient greek cultures all had different scale systems based on the locale but they were all making scales and using arpeggios (hence lydian, dorian, phyrgian). use of similar elements to create something (in this case, an epic story) isn't extraordinary.

I don't think it was uncommon in other cultures to interpret gods of various religions as compatible with their own. For example, I believe I was reading Herodotus one time and he went to great lengths to identify different Egyptian gods and mythological figures with Greek ones. If you have a good comparative study of the differences in religions in their views of other religions that isn't focused on the ones which happen to be surviving (there is quite a bit of a selection issue there; it could be quite in a religion's survival interest to call other religions false or wrong) then I would be delighted to hear it.

wonder how many religions survived christianity's rise to power/initial reign of terror.

never know thanks to burning books.

It seems as though you are conflating evidence with proof. While there can be no proof without evidence, there can be evidence without proof.

In a court of law, the judge determines what may or may not be admissable as "evidence." Outright hearsay is usually rejected, as are hunches and intuitive suspicions. However, if it is somehow related to the case, then even circumstantial evidence and sworn testimony can be deemed admissible. But then it's not science; it's law.

As I define "Evidence," mere circumstance and testimony are in doubt, especially when it comes to religious or "spiritual" issues.


When making a scientific - not legal - investigation. Although a legal investigation usually includes the results of a scientific (forensic) investigation, it allows for personal testimony and circumstance to be considered as well.


Again, you are assuming that the legal definition of evidence is the same as the scientific definition. Legal procedings include the scientific method, testimony, and circumstance to determine a case, while science relies on the scientific method alone to prove its claims.


In such a legal case, the poetry may be considered as significant as a signed confession. However, unless forensic science can demonstrate that the poetry was indeed written by the poet, that the poet was actually at the scene of the crime, that the poet owned or handled the murder weapon, and that the poet was capable of committing the murder, the prosecuting attorney may be unlikely to file an arrest warrant. Even then, the prosecution must weave all the evidence, testimony, and circumstance into a theory that would convince a jury to convict the suspect.

Assuming, of course that the accused does not produce an alibi that places him someplace other than the crime scene when the crime took place (Like maybe his fraternity brothers all testify under oath that he was attending a Bible study with them).


Now you are carrying the argument into Debate, which is not so much concerned with who is right or wrong, but with which side has the most convincing argument with the fewest possible errors.

Now, after a thorough review of the statements made, and giving due consideration to the learned opinions therein, I see that I must amend my definition:

Scientific Evidence is any material substance, measurable force or energy emission, or causal event that irrefutably and repeatedly demonstrates the validity of a claim.

Scientific Evidence is only a small subset of Legally Admissible Evidence.

Legally Admissible Evidence also includes circumstance, hypothetical arguments, and sworn testimony.

Leave it to the legal system to screw up good science...

Question here, I ask this as I am not sure about the position within different fields of science, or your position in this, out of curiosity, when it comes to Cosmology, and forming theories from observations, I would assume that because of the distance, the results from this are different that from other fields of science in which the evidence is gained through testing in labs, this, however, and I acknowledge that as it is different, it meets the criteria for the scientific method. The question is, in your opinion, would that be acceptable or not, when it comes to predictions based on observations in cosmology and astronomy, which are considered evidence, I remember you saying you didn't accept predictions as evidence, or it a was different case? anyway, how would you take Cosmology in this sense, especially when it comes to models and theories about the origin of the universe for example.

Is Scientific Evidence necessarily irrefutable? I ask this, because #1. A scientific theory which part of its validty is due to evidence, is also falsiable, and #2. evidence generally is a product of interpretations of results, as accurate as the result it seems to get, it is based on a certain amount of human limited comprehension and perception, which it would suggest that in one hundred years from now, there is a possibility of new evidence could be found to contradict the actual accepted evidence. Or am I wrong if not little to make this observation?