What is your definition of "evidence"?

Post Reply New Topic

No dictionaries unless you wish to be ignored.

ev-i-dence (evi-dns)n. 1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis. 2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face. 3. Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.v. tr. ev-i-denced, ev-i-denc-ing, ev-i-denc-es. 1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove. 2. To support by testimony; attest. --idiom. in evidence. 3. Plainly visible; to be seen: It was early, and few pedestrians were in evidence on the city streets. 4. Law. As legal evidence: submitted the photograph in evidence.[Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin evidentia, from Latin evidens, evident-, obvious. See EVIDENT.]

---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

"Evidence in its broadest sense includes anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Philosophically, evidence can include propositions which are presumed to be true used in support of other propositions that are presumed to be falsifiable. The term has specialized meanings when used with respect to specific fields, such as policy, scientific method, criminal procedures, and legal discourse.

The most immediate form of evidence available to an individual is the observations of that person's own senses. For example an observer wishing for evidence that the sky is blue need only look at the sky. However this same example illustrates some of the difficulties of evidence as well:

* someone who was blue-yellow color blind, but did not know it, would have a very different perception of what color the sky was than someone who was not. Even simple sensory perceptions (qualia) ultimately are subjective; guaranteeing that the same information can be considered somehow true in an objective sense is the main challenge of establishing standards of evidence.
* there is also the question of what is meant by 'blue', and how we measure it. (If determined by a particular wave-length of colour - then how do we actually measure this?)
* there is also the question of how evidence 'translates' e.g. is 'blau' in German universally translated as 'blue' in English: Germans may have different words for different parts of the spectrum; thus 'evidence' is a social construction."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

Something that can lead one to a logical conclusion.

I think that is true in Russian. There are two different words for different frequencies of what we all lump together as blue which apparently also changes the way Russians perceive and respond to the colours in that spectrum. There was a recent study on this, but I can't be bothered to find the link to it at the moment.

Anyway, to be more serious, here is my definition:

That which carries epistemic weight according to the accepted standards.

something you don't have

Therein lies the problem though. "Accepted standards". In the medieval period that could mean conforming with biblical texts.

Therefore evidence of the earth not being at the centre of the universe or of revolving around the sun means the evidence carries no weight? Heresy?

Yes, biblical texts or perhaps the words of Plato or Aristotle. The issue is that I am not going to define what a proper epistemology is, especially given that such a thing would likely have complex standards, especially considering that all things could have some evidential power, even the words of a madman.

Well, according to definitions of evidence in dictionaries and in the web, there are different uses for the word evidence in different areas, I could say that even in fiction, you could count as some things as evidence to increase credibility, I suppose, but don't take my word on it

Anyway, what it is probably most discussed on this forum when it comes to evidence, that would be scientific evidence or empirical evidence, although, that could come with some sort of bias sometimes, especially among us, who are not professionals in an specific area, but some here might be though, amateurs or unprofessionals might easily be mistaken to qualify a proposition on something as evidence, I would assume.

if I'm not mistaken, evidence in science, is something that provides prove throught tests to a theory in order to be valid, however that theory also has to be falsiable in order to be valid as well, that would mean that there might be other evidence later which could disprove such theory, at least that is what I think, am I correct?

Evidence is data for the point of acquiring fact, correct?

Here is a question:

If evidence is for acquiring fact, then the method of evidence can be considered correct or incorrect, what is the evidence for the rectitude of a form of evidence?

at least not with claims of the existence of deities.

Interesting question, I think I get this as something like or similar like,
Is there evidence for the evidence itself?

I suppose I might be redundant with this reply.

Any post that Fnord doesn't read?

Evidence, Please?

Lol. I can't give you evidence, because it's like Schrodinger's cat. The more you look, the more it isn't there. You'll just have to smirk and feel intellectually superior

Last edited by patternist on 20 Aug 2008, 7:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.