Sufficient Evidence - What is it?

[2PhiloVoid]

When we say we have something called 'sufficient evidence,' what do we mean specifically by this term? What makes evidence sufficient? When evidence is 'sufficient,' does this mean the nature of the evidence is something anyone and perhaps everyone can easily subscribe to?

I ask this because it seems to me that there is an unspoken diversity of meaning among people as to what constitutes 'sufficiency'. If there is no unanimity as to what 'sufficiency' is, then how can we make solid claims for our conclusions?

Just wondering what you think.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I imagine it is inherently subjective. Evidence is sufficient (to me) if it convinces me.

 

[variant]

When we say we have something called 'sufficient evidence,' what do we mean specifically by this term? What makes evidence sufficient? When evidence is 'sufficient,' does this mean the nature of the evidence is something anyone and perhaps everyone can easily subscribe to?

I ask this because it seems to me that there is an unspoken diversity of meaning among people as to what constitutes 'sufficiency'. If there is no unanimity as to what 'sufficiency' is, then how can we make solid claims for our conclusions?

Just wondering what you think.

Generally evidence is sufficient when it is objective (accessible to all), reproducible (predicts correctly every time regardless of the observer) and enough that a average rational observer will accept it.

If you are talking about a historical standard than you want opposition views of the same event telling the same story.

 

[juvenissun]

When we say we have something called 'sufficient evidence,' what do we mean specifically by this term? What makes evidence sufficient? When evidence is 'sufficient,' does this mean the nature of the evidence is something anyone and perhaps everyone can easily subscribe to?

I ask this because it seems to me that there is an unspoken diversity of meaning among people as to what constitutes 'sufficiency'. If there is no unanimity as to what 'sufficiency' is, then how can we make solid claims for our conclusions?

Just wondering what you think.

I only understand its scientific meaning:

If A, then B could happen. A is a sufficient evidence for B. (B does not have to happen)
If not A, then B could not happen. A is a necessary evidence for B.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I imagine it is inherently subjective. Evidence is sufficient (to me) if it convinces me.

Ok-I appreciate the honesty in that reply. Subjectivity is an approach I am inclined to accept as well in evaluating my own criteria of evaluation. However, do you think that your subjectivity in evaluating evidence is the approach you take when applied to all fields of human inquiry, or just some? What happens in cases where everyone agrees with you? How subjective are you being when everyone agrees with you?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Generally evidence is sufficient when it is objective (accessible to all), reproducible (predicts correctly every time regardless of the observer) and enough that a average rational observer will accept it.

If you are talking about a historical standard than you want opposition views of the same event telling the same story.

Ok- it seems like your approach in defining 'sufficient' evidence indicates a scientific posture. You also seem to imply that metaphysical considerations are perhaps out of bounds from the possibility of attaining any evidence that could be 'sufficient.' Would I be correct in assuming this?

In regard to historical evidences, could you clarify what you mean by opposition of views? I'm assuming you don't mean opposing views.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I only understand its scientific meaning:

If A, then B could happen. A is a sufficient evidence for B. (B does not have to happen)
If not A, then B could not happen. A is a necessary evidence for B.

Well, Juve, I see the general logic in what you are saying, and it seems true if we are considering general ideas about cause and effect. But, what about historical or metaphysical questions? For instance, we might want to consider whether or not we have 'sufficient evidence' as to whether or not Socrates or Jesus existed as real people. When do we know that we have 'sufficient' evidence for the existence of either individual? Who decides this?

 

[essentialsaltes]

However, do you think that your subjectivity in evaluating evidence is the approach you take when applied to all fields of human inquiry, or just some?

The only approach I have is the one I have, and I think that makes it necessarily subjective.

What happens in cases where everyone agrees with you? How subjective are you being when everyone agrees with you?

If everyone agreed that Beethoven was better than Bach, that would still not make it objective.

 

[quatona]

When we say we have something called 'sufficient evidence,' what do we mean specifically by this term? What makes evidence sufficient? When evidence is 'sufficient,' does this mean the nature of the evidence is something anyone and perhaps everyone can easily subscribe to?

I ask this because it seems to me that there is an unspoken diversity of meaning among people as to what constitutes 'sufficiency'. If there is no unanimity as to what 'sufficiency' is, then how can we make solid claims for our conclusions?

Just wondering what you think.

Surely, "sufficient" implies subjectivity. I have no problem with that.
What, however, puzzles me is when people start being inconsistent in their subjective standards (e.g. lower the bar when their favourite beliefs don´t match those standards they generally apply).

 

[juvenissun]

Well, Juve, I see the general logic in what you are saying, and it seems true if we are considering general ideas about cause and effect. But, what about historical or metaphysical questions? For instance, we might want to consider whether or not we have 'sufficient evidence' as to whether or not Socrates or Jesus existed as real people. When do we know that we have 'sufficient' evidence for the existence of either individual? Who decides this?

I take this term as a logic term. And if the issue or question is beyond logic, then this term simply does not apply and it could mean anything.

For example, is the Shroud of Turin a sufficient evidence for a person called Jesus? This is not a question which a simply logic could be applied to.

 

[RDKirk]

Well, Juve, I see the general logic in what you are saying, and it seems true if we are considering general ideas about cause and effect. But, what about historical or metaphysical questions? For instance, we might want to consider whether or not we have 'sufficient evidence' as to whether or not Socrates or Jesus existed as real people. When do we know that we have 'sufficient' evidence for the existence of either individual? Who decides this?

I would agree with others that the issue is largely subjective, but I'd also say that the level of subjectivity can be agreed upon by a group.

Professional historians, for instance, have broadly established what level of evidence is sufficient to declare that a historical figure actually existed. By their definitions of sufficient evidence, they have declared that a philosopher named Socrates did exist. By the same consistent definitions of sufficient evidence, they also declare that a historical Jesus existed.

In fact, of the kind evidence they use to determine the existence of Socrates, there is an order of magnitude more of the same kind of evidence for the existence of Jesus. They could only deny a historical Jesus by denying a historical Socratese.

Now, other people can either agree or disagree with the professionals...but they have to determine their own definitions of sufficiency and apply them consistently.

 

[Sayre]

I thought there were some fairly well established rules for studying history?

Plausibility, early attestation, multiple attestation, embarrassment, etc?

The subjective part is measuring the degree to which an evidence meets those criterion.

Are people here becoming consequentialists? Because it caused me to change my beliefs, it must have been sufficient evidence?

 

[variant]

Ok- it seems like your approach in defining 'sufficient' evidence indicates a scientific posture. You also seem to imply that metaphysical considerations are perhaps out of bounds from the possibility of attaining any evidence that could be 'sufficient.' Would I be correct in assuming this?

Depends on what metaphysical considerations you are trying to put forward.

Some metaphysics are quite easily sufficiently evidenced.

In regard to historical evidences, could you clarify what you mean by opposition of views? I'm assuming you don't mean opposing views.

The more sides of the story the better, especially those that have differing points of view on the issue or opposed points of view.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Depends on what metaphysical considerations you are trying to put forward.

Some metaphysics are quite easily sufficiently evidenced.

Ok. So the 'sufficiency' required is, we might agree, contingent on the specific issue being evaluated; different issues, different sufficiency. However, this still doesn't define a 'standard' of sufficiency that all should adhere to. Is the standard we are looking for supposed to be constructed of quantity or quality? When do we have 'enough'?

The more sides of the story the better, especially those that have differing points of view on the issue or opposed points of view.

So...if two opposing points of view were to agree on some issue, say metaphysical, then that would 'do it' for you? So, if two other people find something to be 'sufficient' then I should believe their points of view? Is this what you're saying?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The only approach I have is the one I have, and I think that makes it necessarily subjective.

Again, I find myself leaning in your direction on this. However, how do we know we aren't actually missing something in our evaluation, or simply being solipsistic?

If everyone agreed that Beethoven was better than Bach, that would still not make it objective.

True. So, objectivity is a myth?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I would agree with others that the issue is largely subjective, but I'd also say that the level of subjectivity can be agreed upon by a group.

Ok, RD. I'm following what you are saying. But how is this different than some form of 'cultural relativism.'?

Professional historians, for instance, have broadly established what level of evidence is sufficient to declare that a historical figure actually existed. By their definitions of sufficient evidence, they have declared that a philosopher named Socrates did exist. By the same consistent definitions of sufficient evidence, they also declare that a historical Jesus existed.

So, what happens when different professional historians disagree on some important issue? How does that affect a 'standard' of sufficiency.

In fact, of the kind evidence they use to determine the existence of Socrates, there is an order of magnitude more of the same kind of evidence for the existence of Jesus. They could only deny a historical Jesus by denying a historical Socratese.

Now, other people can either agree or disagree with the professionals...but they have to determine their own definitions of sufficiency and apply them consistently.

So, we can agree that 'sufficiency' of evidence, say of the God issue(s), is a relative term for basically everyone?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Surely, "sufficient" implies subjectivity. I have no problem with that.
What, however, puzzles me is when people start being inconsistent in their subjective standards (e.g. lower the bar when their favourite beliefs don´t match those standards they generally apply).

Good point, quantona. It bothers me too when people are inconsistent with the application of their 'standards.' However, I'm still wondering 'how' they decided that certain qualities or quantities of evidence were sufficient. It seems to me that it more often comes down to esthetic considerations rather than those of logic. Am I wrong here?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I thought there were some fairly well established rules for studying history?

Plausibility, early attestation, multiple attestation, embarrassment, etc?

The subjective part is measuring the degree to which an evidence meets those criterion.

Are people here becoming consequentialists? Because it caused me to change my beliefs, it must have been sufficient evidence?

There are some general rules for historians, but that doesn't me that they all abide by the same interpretive framework. Some might be more 'modernist' in their approach, while some are postmodernist.

Also, the creation of history is a selective process, but just how relative that selection is is part of the 'sufficiency' question. Then, do we question the criterion that have been placed by the historians? How do we know that their criterion are giving us 'sufficient' accounts of those things we are inquiring about historically?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Again, I find myself leaning in your direction on this. However, how do we know we aren't actually missing something in our evaluation, or simply being solipsistic?

I guess I'm open to alternatives...

True. So, objectivity is a myth?

Almost. I think some judgments, like aesthetic and moral judgments, are inherently subjective. There is no objective fact of the matter.

I think the judgment of "Am I convinced by that evidence or not?" is also subjective, and obvious (in the sense that presumably you are in a privileged position to know whether you are convinced or not).

But there are some areas where something closer to an objective judgment can be made, but it relies on the mutual acceptance of a particular system or convention.

If I claim that a certain chess position leads to a checkmate by white in 6 moves, you may not be convinced. But if I show you the moves, and you are certain that the rules of the game have been obeyed, and the mate occurs as described, it would seem to me that you would have little recourse other than to be convinced by this evidence.

But this depends on you also knowing (and agreeing to abide by) the rules of chess. That itself is subjective (it varies from person to person - some people don't know the rules of chess, and maybe through stubbornness will refuse to learn them or abide by them.)

The same could be said of mathematics or logic. As long as both of you are abiding by the conventions of Euclidean mathematics, and can reason clearly and correctly (not necessarily a given, either), one person should be able to convince another person of a true fact of Euclidean mathematics.

One can also look at the many science debates in some of the other folders here as a conflict between different subjective choices of convention for 'How science is done'. Some people have implicit or explicit additional conventions (e.g. if the conclusion contradicts my interpretation of the Bible, then the evidence is not convincing) that prevent evidence that convinces one person from convincing another.

 

[variant]

Ok. So the 'sufficiency' required is, we might agree, contingent on the specific issue being evaluated; different issues, different sufficiency. However, this still doesn't define a 'standard' of sufficiency that all should adhere to. Is the standard we are looking for supposed to be constructed of quantity or quality? When do we have 'enough'?

No the standards are pretty usual, the questions we are evaluating are different. I already laid them out, they do not exclude metaphysics, they exclude metaphysics that aren't in evidence.

So...if two opposing points of view were to agree on some issue, say metaphysical, then that would 'do it' for you? So, if two other people find something to be 'sufficient' then I should believe their points of view? Is this what you're saying?

If they were opposing in those metaphysics that would be impossible.

We can't judge metaphysics historically. Just what events did or did not happen.

We should give credence to an event happening when two opposing viewpoints say basically the same thing about it.