This conversation is closed.

What are parameters for the term "evidence" in evaluating knowledge ?

The broad idea I intend to understand is that
"what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

  • thumb
    Jan 14 2013: Evidence is scientifically collected and verified data that supports a point of view.

    A point a view with overwhelming evidence is called a scientific law. Laws can be asserted as true without any further effort.

    A point of view with substantial, but not overwhelming evidence is called a theory. You must back up this assertion with further logic or evidence before expecting others to agree with you.

    A point of view with little or no evidence is called a belief. It's fine to hold a belief yourself, but you cannot insist that others share it with you without bringing supporting evidence to the table with you.
  • thumb

    Gail .

    • +1
    Jan 14 2013: The word "evidence" does not mean "proof".

    I have abundant "evidence" supporting my worldview, but I do not have "proof" that it is the right answer.

    As to the quote you offer, I can say that I have "evidence" that IF there is a god, it has nothing in common with the God of Abraham that so many worship. Those who worship this "God" have no "evidence" to support His/Its existence, so it is an "idea" that can legitimately be dismissed out-of-hand. Further conversation is a waste of time and effort.

    Those who say that "God" doesn't exist often have evidence supporting that conclusion, so in order to continue a rational conversation, other legitimate and competing evidence must be offered. The Bible isn't evidence. The fact that we live in what appears to be a physical reality is not evidence. A scientific experiment is evidence.
  • thumb
    Jan 13 2013: The definition of "evidence" is context dependent. It is useful in using a term to understand how the person you are talking to uses the term, because there is no single answer.

    To determine whether you like chocolate ice cream, tasting it is probably evidence enough for you one way or the other.

    Science has its own standards and even within science, it is customary to decide in advance of processing data what level of certainty the researchers or those in their field would consider adequate evidence for drawing a conclusion. Even in this case, researchers stipulate as part of the research the level of confidence they have in their conclusions based on the strength and quality of the evidence. Replicability is an important aspect of scientific evidence.

    A very public example might be that the scientists at the Large Hadron Collider established in advance how certain they would need to be that they were seeing something real rather than "noise" before they announced that they had likely found a Higgs-like particle. The evidence was getting stronger over the course of months, but they were not ready to "call it" until they had reached a certain level of strength of evidence. In fact they had decided in advance that each of the two collaborations involved separately in the Higgs search (ATLAS and CMS) would need to reach that level of confidence before they would announce. One got there before the other, but they did not announce until both did. [Disclaimer: I am not a physicist, so I would rely more on what actual scientists say on this, as the rest of us may often misinterpret].

    Law has its own standards of what constitutes evidence and what constitutes adequate evidence to draw particular conclusions, which standards differ by the legal system or even within the legal system, the question at hand.
  • thumb
    Jan 13 2013: G'day Sayyam

    How many ideologies & theories have been proven to be correct one day & the next disproven, even text book proven theories have been proven wrong latter on but they still teach from them.

    In this you could ask yourself what is the true evidence of things, there isn’t one as there are no fail safe perimeters obviously it’s all a presumption in what we know at the time. What dictates this perimeter is our conscious awareness & the more aware & open we are to other possibilities the more we will disprove. As long as we are progressing in our consciousness nothing is solid proof but only when our consciousness stagnates is there any solid proof because we have stopped evolving & who wants to do that?

    I see where you’re coming at Sayyam, one can say there is a God but where is the proof but on the other hand what proof is there that there isn’t a God? So many people will adamantly say there isn’t a God but how do they really know, what evidence have they that there isn’t a God? What will happen is we will get to a certain conscious level & have that proof as we have of so many other things, it’s our consciousness that will define what’s correct or incorrect at that time in evolution.

    The funny thing is scientists are finding out that there had to be some sort of intelligent entity in the things they are finding out about our universe through quantum physics, mechanics & vacuum.