Define "Evidence"

[Shem Yoshi]

Define "evidence"

Ill give a start.

Evidence is anything used to support a claim.

Bonus question.
What is the defining factors of "no evidence" for something?

Does your definition of evidence, and no evidence, hold up to all things objectively?

[Shem Yoshi]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #7

Can evidence lead us to things that are not true. I personally dont believe we can know what truth is. We will never know the truth. So evidence might lead us somewhere but we will never fully grasp the wholeness of truth.

That's why evidence has to be examined----first to make sure that it is evidence, then to determine how reliable that evidence is.

But anyone rationality can fail them.

How do you know what is evidence, and what is not?

Observable conditions or events which lead to likely conclusions about their origins are evidence of those origins.

What about your idea that evidence actually leads to truth? But now you are saying it leads to likely conclusions?

It seems one gives room for error and one doesn't? Is there error involved between evidence and truth, or not?

And also, what about anything you dont observe? History for example?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #11

What about your idea that evidence actually leads to truth? But now you are saying it leads to likely conclusions?

It seems one gives room for error and one doesn't? Is there error involved between evidence and truth, or not?

And also, what about anything you dont observe? History for example?

There's a difference between likely conclusions and unlikely ones. The conclusion that MM either saw an angel sitting on the stone or didn't see one there is likely. The conclusion that she saw one there and at the same time didn't see one there is, to say the least, unlikely.

[Shem Yoshi]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #11

What about your idea that evidence actually leads to truth? But now you are saying it leads to likely conclusions?

It seems one gives room for error and one doesn't? Is there error involved between evidence and truth, or not?

And also, what about anything you dont observe? History for example?

There's a difference between likely conclusions and unlikely ones. The conclusion that MM either saw an angel sitting on the stone or didn't see one there is likely. The conclusion that she saw one there and at the same time didn't see one there is, to say the least, unlikely.

I am not willing to get off the topic for discussion in this thread. In light of current discussion I believe the original definition of evidence still stands:

"Evidence is anything used to support a claim."

I do not think we can declare something is evidence and something is not evidence based on its accuracy, for we can never be sure for all things that the evidence is 100% accurate in leading to a truth.

Like what we have been discussing, skepticism like how Rene Descartes showed, is that ALL things can be brought into scrutiny. Therefor if all things can be brought into scrutiny, and if we aloud evidence to only be for things that are actually true, there would be no evidence for anything, because we dont know anything is actually true. However I do not believe there is no evidence for everything, surely there is evidence for things whether or not we can validate if it is actually true or not.

Therefor I believe my definition is still the best definition we have.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #13

if we aloud evidence to only be for things that are actually true, there would be no evidence for anything, because we dont know anything is actually true.

This is way off.

When trying to determine whether or not something is correct, we search for evidence. After the initial observation, searching for evidence is the very next step in trying to determine if something is correct or not. The amount and quality of evidence found can then be used to determine what conclusion to accept.

[Shem Yoshi]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #13

if we aloud evidence to only be for things that are actually true, there would be no evidence for anything, because we dont know anything is actually true.

This is way off.

When trying to determine whether or not something is correct, we search for evidence. After the initial observation, searching for evidence is the very next step in trying to determine if something is correct or not. The amount and quality of evidence found can then be used to determine what conclusion to accept.

Ya i think I can angry with that. I just wonder about truth, if we can ever really know anything. Take Newtonian Physics, he gave us 3 laws of motion, however Einstein proved the laws wrong a few hundred years later. So although evidence is leading us to something, we really dont know or understand what it is leading us to.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #15

Ya i think I can angry with that. I just wonder about truth, if we can ever really know anything. Take Newtonian Physics, he gave us 3 laws of motion, however Einstein proved the laws wrong a few hundred years later. So although evidence is leading us to something, we really dont know or understand what it is leading us to.

It behooves us to remember what Thomas Paine wrote:

"A thing which everybody is required to believe, requires that the proof and evidence of it should be equal to all, and universal...."

[Purple Knight]

Evidence is anything used to support a claim.

I agree except for the small and probably irrelevant caveat that a crazy person could say the fact that strawberries are red means there are cabbages on Mars. There has to be some viable link. I have never seen anyone actually trying to debate something go for cabbages on Mars though so I think this is an irrelevant nitpick.

What is the defining factors of "no evidence" for something?

I don't think I've even encountered a position with absolutely no evidence for it. I consider the claims of flat-earthers to be weak, but they do have evidence. There isn't even zero evidence that ghosts exist, it's just weak evidence.

And I admit that what is seen as weak is up to the person evaluating that evidence.

Does your definition of evidence, and no evidence, hold up to all things objectively?

Absolutely. I once admitted that I don't have much more evidence to trust that Abraham Lincoln existed than that Jesus did. I don't consider "someone wrote it down" to equal "it happened" and I'm absolutely consistent about this much to my detriment because I end up either defending conspiracy theorists and getting laughed at for it, or lying and saying I agree that Abraham Lincoln absolutely existed and not getting away with it because I'm a bad liar.

I don't even believe Abraham Lincoln existed. I'll say I do to avoid sounding like a lunatic but I really don't. I mean, he probably did exist, but give me a time machine and $100 to bet on it, and I'll just keep the $100 and not make the bet.

[Shem Yoshi]

Evidence is anything used to support a claim.

I agree except for the small and probably irrelevant caveat that a crazy person could say the fact that strawberries are red means there are cabbages on Mars. There has to be some viable link. I have never seen anyone actually trying to debate something go for cabbages on Mars though so I think this is an irrelevant nitpick.

I would have to think about that, but let us take the other extreme. Let us say all the evidence gathered by Galileo led Newton to induce the theory of gravity. Surely you would have to consider that as a 'viable link' more so then "strawberries are red means there are cabbages on Mars"... However, is it truly a viable link? The theory of gravity fell to Einsteins fabric of space/time. Newton was wrong when he induced his theory.

Our best ideas, end up to lead us to conclusions that are wrong... So if we are to say that "strawberries are red means there are cabbages on Mars" is not evidence, or strange ideas put forth from crazy links of evidence... How can we establish our best ideas are any better?

What is the defining factors of "no evidence" for something?

I don't think I've even encountered a position with absolutely no evidence for it. I consider the claims of flat-earthers to be weak, but they do have evidence. There isn't even zero evidence that ghosts exist, it's just weak evidence.

And I admit that what is seen as weak is up to the person evaluating that evidence.

Does your definition of evidence, and no evidence, hold up to all things objectively?

Absolutely. I once admitted that I don't have much more evidence to trust that Abraham Lincoln existed than that Jesus did. I don't consider "someone wrote it down" to equal "it happened" and I'm absolutely consistent about this much to my detriment because I end up either defending conspiracy theorists and getting laughed at for it, or lying and saying I agree that Abraham Lincoln absolutely existed and not getting away with it because I'm a bad liar.

I don't even believe Abraham Lincoln existed. I'll say I do to avoid sounding like a lunatic but I really don't. I mean, he probably did exist, but give me a time machine and $100 to bet on it, and I'll just keep the $100 and not make the bet.

[Purple Knight]

Our best ideas, end up to lead us to conclusions that are wrong... So if we are to say that "strawberries are red means there are cabbages on Mars" is not evidence, or strange ideas put forth from crazy links of evidence... How can we establish our best ideas are any better?

We can't, but if we said strawberries are red means there are strawberries on Mars, because Mars is also red, that would be horrible and abductive but it would at least have a link. You don't have to be right; there just has to be some link. You don't have to agree that the evidence has any real merit; you just have to say, okay, those are not absolutely unrelated statements.

Convinced that I'm a genuine skeptic then? It actually makes me a criminal in some countries because if they put me under a lie detector and asked for an affirmation that the Holocaust happened, I would not be able to give one. The best I could do on that is that the advent of video recording and the fact that there are video recordings of things like bodies is much more evidence, but I still don't know for a fact that those bodies in pits are Jews or how they got there. I still wouldn't bet on those things if given a free $100 and a time machine. If possible I would just pocket the $100 rather than bet on "a sure thing" which I do not consider to be so.

I don't think you need much more confirmation that if anybody's mindset is wrong or sick, it's mine. I am, however, completely consistent in doubting things I don't have extremely good evidence for.

It's also possible that a fake skeptic, who doubts selectively depending on what is socially acceptable, but is not consistent, is less sick in the head than I am. They would not go to jail and I probably would, and that's honestly pretty damning as far as who has it right and who has it wrong.

[Compassionist]

Define "evidence"

Ill give a start.

Evidence is anything used to support a claim.

Bonus question.
What is the defining factors of "no evidence" for something?

Does your definition of evidence, and no evidence, hold up to all things objectively?

Please see https://www.dictionary.com/browse/evidence