What is your definition of "evidence"?

Post Reply New Topic

Right, I mean, to be honest, science uses mathematical methods rather heavily as a means of finding truth, which means that pure verification isn't valuable. Not only that, but science is founded upon epistemology. So, to purely stand upon science, not only prevents that science from being meaningful by denying other essential knowledge, but also ends up being somewhat self-contradictory, as science cannot prove itself, so one cannot reach science without a non-scientific form of evidence. Finally, people and businesses do not run themselves purely upon science, but rather use other methodologies of finding truth, such as probabilitic/statistical methods(which you haven't been stressing in your view of science) or simply basic inference.

Evidence is qualified by the time and place in which said evidence is promoted. Good evidence is factual as opposed to being hearsay. And facts are related to contemporary science. Facts evolve as science evolves.

In the legal sphere, there is circumstantial evidence which can be refuted by a competent attorney. It is of course possible to be framed for a crime you didn't commit.

Evidence doesn't occur within a vacuum. Social consensus, the status quo, etc play a role in what is considered evidence and what is not. In a court trial, some evidence may not be permitted. And the reasons given for not permitting it may be flimsy.

Evidence is usually based upon sensory perception - what is seen, heard, touched, smelled and tasted. However quantum physics indicates that our senses may deceive us.

Independent confirmation is essential in corroborating the facts if the facts are based upon witness testimony. In the case of science, experiments must verifiably produce consistent results.