Board index ‹ Assorted Bible Questions

[Newbie]

I encountered this interesting (but seriously flawed) definition of evidence:

"Of course they have evidence! People don't hold beliefs in a vacuum. The mind can only believe something if it actually believes it. And it can only believe it if it has been persuaded that it is true. Whatever the things were which caused that persuasion, that is what we call evidence. My evidence is different from theirs only in the sense that I find my evidence compelling, and I do not find theirs compelling. I admit that they have evidence, but I think they interpret it incorrectly (or that there isn't enough evidence to warrant the strength of their belief)."

Note in particular: "Whatever the things were which caused that persuasion, that is what we call evidence."

Apparently pretty much anything is "evidence". How do you define evidence?

[jimwalton]

Hm, that looks like a quote from me, but maybe not. Actually there are two kinds of evidence: direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. There is eye-witness testimony, and material evidence (hats, fingerprints, chemical tests, DNA, signs of entry and egress, etc.). Material evidence can be more substantial than eye-witness testimony, though material evidence has to be interpreted. Eye-witness testimony has to evaluated for reliability. The bottom line in evidence is not certainty and provability, but what is persuasive as both possible and reasonable. Evidence is generally accepted as compelling when it brings one to the most reasonable conclusion given the available data, both verbal and material. Evidentiary evaluation usually uses abductive reasoning: examining all of the information available and inferring to the most reasonable explanation. That's what I say evidence is.