What qualifies as evidence?

[SomeRandom]

So, this may or may not be inspired by what I’ve been witnessing. I’ll leave it at that.
But I’m wondering, what qualifies as sufficient evidence to you? What standards do you hold evidence to?
Do you think there are people who hold differing standards? And why do you think that happens?
Debate, discuss as you like.

 

[Quetzal]

Raw data dumps, primary sources that are confirmed with verifiable information, peer-reviewed content, etc. In short, nothing that is leveraged by the mainstream media.

 

[Wandering Monk]

So, this may or may not be inspired by what I’ve been witnessing. I’ll leave it at that.
But I’m wondering, what qualifies as sufficient evidence to you? What standards do you hold evidence to?
Do you think there are people who hold differing standards? And why do you think that happens?
Debate, discuss as you like.

Evidence pertaining to what? Things of a spiritual nature or of a physical nature?

 

[SomeRandom]

Evidence pertaining to what? Things of a spiritual nature or of a physical nature?

Both

 

[Wandering Monk]

Both

Evidence in the spiritual realm is not objective because it cannot be measured or quantified.

In the physical realm evidence needs to be defined by the realm we are talking about. Evidence is one thing in a court, another in a lab, and yet another in the psychologists office.

 

[Thief]

So, this may or may not be inspired by what I’ve been witnessing. I’ll leave it at that.
But I’m wondering, what qualifies as sufficient evidence to you? What standards do you hold evidence to?
Do you think there are people who hold differing standards? And why do you think that happens?
Debate, discuss as you like.

you can place as evidence .....ANY manner of topic
and the next guy will throw a flag of doubt to cover it

note my signature

So I prefer a technique of thought
after all......thought experiments have led the way on soooo many fronts

my prefered method is reduction.....such as.....

Someone had to be FIRST

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So, this may or may not be inspired by what I’ve been witnessing. I’ll leave it at that.
But I’m wondering, what qualifies as sufficient evidence to you? What standards do you hold evidence to?
Do you think there are people who hold differing standards? And why do you think that happens?
Debate, discuss as you like.

If I did ask for evidence of spiritual things, it would mostly be my asking what people's personal experiences are that lead them to the belief(s) they hold. Usually we tend to have empathy and relate more to others when we can relate to their experiences and the intentions are and must be reciprocal in nature. I really don't need to know if gods are real or so have you if that connection no matter how small is in place.

I do feel people hold different standards, obviously. It's not a problem in itself unless those standards cause means of disrespect of other people whether it be evangelizing to convert or so have you. At least so far our differing standards isn't causing bloodshed as it did in the past.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, this may or may not be inspired by what I’ve been witnessing. I’ll leave it at that.
But I’m wondering, what qualifies as sufficient evidence to you? What standards do you hold evidence to?
Do you think there are people who hold differing standards? And why do you think that happens?
Debate, discuss as you like.

There are different standards for evidence in different disciplines.

And perhaps you should have asked "What qualifies as reliable evidence?"

 

[SomeRandom]

There are different standards for evidence in different disciplines.

And perhaps you should have asked "What qualifies as reliable evidence?"

Fair point

 

[Twilight Hue]

So, this may or may not be inspired by what I’ve been witnessing. I’ll leave it at that.
But I’m wondering, what qualifies as sufficient evidence to you? What standards do you hold evidence to?
Do you think there are people who hold differing standards? And why do you think that happens?
Debate, discuss as you like.

Evidence is pointing out something obvious and clear that everyone can see and understand without the requirement of debate, because if its true evidence, there will be no debating about it*.

*Unless your stark raving mad!

 

[McBell]

So, this may or may not be inspired by what I’ve been witnessing. I’ll leave it at that.
But I’m wondering, what qualifies as sufficient evidence to you? What standards do you hold evidence to?
Do you think there are people who hold differing standards? And why do you think that happens?
Debate, discuss as you like.

What I find annoying isn't that there are several "levels" (for lack of a better term) of evidence, but the way so many people switch what level of evidence works for them depending on what is being talked about.

Take for instance how creationists take their interpretation of the Bible as absolute proof, but dismiss all evidence for evolution without even looking at any of it.

There are tons more examples, the one I present just seems to be the most popular on RF at this moment.
Unless you want to get into the 2020 election fiasco....

 

[Sunstone]

I often use the term 'evidence' in the broadest and most inclusive sense I can imagine as 'anything that to any degree offers reason or warrant to assert a claim is (or is not) the case.'

If I want to be more restrictive than that, I typically add a modifier. Empirical evidence. Weak evidence. Strong evidence. Conclusive evidence. Inconclusive evidence. And so forth.

 

[SomeRandom]

What I find annoying isn't that there are several "levels" (for lack of a better term) of evidence, but the way so many people switch what level of evidence works for them depending on what is being talked about.

Take for instance how creationists take their interpretation of the Bible as absolute proof, but dismiss all evidence for evolution without even looking at any of it.

There are tons more examples, the one I present just seems to be the most popular on RF at this moment.
Unless you want to get into the 2020 election fiasco....

Well I was sort of alluding to the 2020 election. It was....interesting to watch the fallout, let’s just say

 

[Valjean]

A spiritual belief is subjective. Subjective evidence may consist only of a feeling or personal perception of a pattern or relationship. Spiritual beliefs may 'require' little epistemic evidence.

Judicial, political or social evidence may consist of a reasonable doubt or preponderance standard. 'Close enough' or probable is sufficient for most situations.

The scientific or engineering standard is more rigorous. Evidence is expected to be observable, measurable, predictive and peer reviewed.

It's when the spiritual make claims of objective truth that clash with established, scientific facts, or do not follow logically, or lack tangible, empirical evidence, that problems arise. Different standards are being applied, and the spiritual don't realize that a claim of ontological truth assumes an objective, empirical burden.

 

[dad]

So, this may or may not be inspired by what I’ve been witnessing. I’ll leave it at that.
But I’m wondering, what qualifies as sufficient evidence to you? What standards do you hold evidence to?
Do you think there are people who hold differing standards? And why do you think that happens?
Debate, discuss as you like.

Evidence is anything that seems to confirm one's beliefs. In science they believe there was no creation and therefore all things need to be explained by the natural world we live in. Anything they find here that reinforces that belief is considered evidence. If they see some process that could be interpreted as (if given enough time) maybe being responsible for life or things we see, that is evidence that it basically created it's little self. If people love abortions and Satanic lifestyles and various evils, they would support a party that stood for those values. If election fraud evidence was seen, they would not consider that evidence. Only what supports their beliefs can be evidence. If some people experience a miracle, they consider that evidence of God's word. If others hear of that evidence they would dismiss it because they have no way to confirm or deny it. While there can be evidence for theories in the here and now real world, in most cases, evidence is just a word people like to use to make their beliefs seem true.

 

[McBell]

Evidence is anything that seems to confirm one's beliefs.

That is certainly your favored level of evidence.

In science they believe there was no creation and therefore all things need to be explained by the natural world we live in. Anything they find here that reinforces that belief is considered evidence.

The problem here is that science does not use your favored level of evidence.
That you refuse to accept that fact is your problem, not sciences.

If they see some process that could be interpreted as (if given enough time) maybe being responsible for life or things we see, that is evidence that it basically created it's little self. If people love abortions and Satanic lifestyles and various evils, they would support a party that stood for those values. If election fraud evidence was seen, they would not consider that evidence. Only what supports their beliefs can be evidence. If some people experience a miracle, they consider that evidence of God's word. If others hear of that evidence they would dismiss it because they have no way to confirm or deny it. While there can be evidence for theories in the here and now real world, in most cases, evidence is just a word people like to use to make their beliefs seem true.

Now you are merely chasing your own tail.

 

[dad]

That is certainly your favored level of evidence.

Since I doubt you could post a single piece of evidence for any of the origin claims of science, that rings hollow.

The problem here is that science does not use your favored level of evidence.
That you refuse to accept that fact is your problem, not sciences.

That you think no evidence and only belief constitutes science is your problem.

Now you are merely chasing your own tail.

Those with nothing to say often cloak that with attempts at sounding deep or clever.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since I doubt you could post a single piece of evidence for any of the origin claims of science, that rings hollow.

That you think no evidence and only belief constitutes science is your problem.

Those with nothing to say often cloak that with attempts at sounding deep or clever.

It is rather sad that the concept of evidence appears to be beyond you. I guess that might be because math is hard.

 

[McBell]

Since I doubt you could post a single piece of evidence for any of the origin claims of science, that rings hollow.

That you think no evidence and only belief constitutes science is your problem.

Those with nothing to say often cloak that with attempts at sounding deep or clever.

Posting evidence for you is completely useless.
If you dislike what is presented you dismiss it out of hand and claim it is not evidence.
You have done exactly that for the last three years.

that you present YOUR idea of what is science as though you think it is MY idea of what is science does not help you.
I mean, it is not like you are fooling anyone who has paid even the remotest attention to your posts.

And thus far you have completely failed with your attempts at deep AND clever.....

 

[dad]

It is rather sad that the concept of evidence appears to be beyond you. I guess that might be because math is hard.

Your math seems to be in your head as well as whatever evidence you think you know about.