Sufficient Evidence - What is it?

[variant]

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

One might question the utility of the idea of "sufficiency of evidence" for such a question in the first place.

 

[bhsmte]

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'?



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?

From a historical method standpoint, historians want multiple contemporary accounts of an event and they want their stories to corroborate one another. They also want those providing the story, to not have any motivation to tell a certain story, because of pressure, or personal benefit. In other words, they are looking for the same criteria a court of law would look for, in regards to the the quality of the evidence. They also look for physical evidence and other written contemporary accounts of the events they are examining for further support.

The historical method is well established, but the longer back you go, the more leeway there is in how much weight, each historian will place on the information they are reviewing, to determine what likely happened in the past.

 

[quatona]

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?

Well, 'how' do you do it? That might help you with understanding how others do it.
It seems to me that it usually is a combination of several factors. Common sense, probabilities (statistics), experience etc. I´m not sure what you mean by "aesthetic considerations" here. Could you elaborate, or give an example?

On another note, I´d like to submit that there may be a difference in what someone considers "sufficient evidence", depending on the question "in order to do what?". There may be a difference between sufficient evidence for believing something or sufficient evidence for claiming something to be true.

Yet another interesting point to consider: How much do the actions of a person suggest that they really rely on that which they consider "sufficiently evidenced" (IOW: do they put their money where their mouth is)?

 

[quatona]

True. So, objectivity is a myth?

Yes - when it comes to matters of subjectivity.

 

[CounselorForChrist]

I personally find when an atheist says they see "no evidence of God" funny. Because they are quick to say that. But they are quick to say they are relatively sure aliens exist. So apparently there definition of what evidence means various upon the subject. We haven't checked every star, every planet, every solar system, every black hole for aliens, but we say odds are they exist. But even though we haven't checked the same things for God... He doesn't exist. >.>

If an alien can exist far from here beyond what we can see, how do we know God doesn't exist then far from where we see? Granted I know Hes no visible. Point remains though.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Granted I know Hes no visible. Point remains though.

The point doesn't remain. If you stipulate that your god will not be found on some planet far away, there is no point in us looking there.

 

[CounselorForChrist]

The point doesn't remain. If you stipulate that your god will not be found on some planet far away, there is no point in us looking there.

Well technically I'm just a human. So I don't know where He is. Heaven could be another realm, it could be at the edge of the universe. Until we look and determine things we cannot say He doens't exist.

 

[sandwiches]

Well technically I'm just a human. So I don't know where He is. Heaven could be another realm, it could be at the edge of the universe. Until we look and determine things we cannot say He doens't exist.

Except we know life exists, we know other planets exist, we specifically know other planets similar to earth exist.

We can't say that Heaven is even a thing that exists. So, if we're to look for God in Heaven, then we need to establish that Heaven is an actual place, to begin with.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Instead of sufficiency, I focus more on the strength of the evidence which is a slightly different, but related characteristic. For me, independence and consilience are the main determinants.

First, the source of the evidence needs to be neutral as to the claims the evidence is trying to support. In the sciences, this neutrality is created by requiring evidence to be empirical which means that the source of the evidence is ultimately from the world around us. For the historical method, a strong source of evidence are people who don't have a dog in the fight. If a greek historian speaks positively of a known enemy then that carries more weight than a greek historian speaking of the great feats performed by a greek hero. In both cases, the evidence is independent of the source's need for something to be true.

The second determinant is consilience, or the agreement of multiple independent lines of evidence that point to the same conclusion. In the sciences, this type of consilience can occur by different types of experiments that all point to the same conclusion. Forensic science might be a good example. If the fingerprint, DNA, shoe print, tire print, and fiber evidence all point to the same person then these multiple and independent lines of evidence are very strong and convincing. In the historical method, multiple historians from different cultures describing very similar events from what appear to be independent observations is also strong evidence. In archaeology, having a match between carbon dating, types of pottery, types of clothing, and types of architecture can be strong pieces of evidence for dating a civilization.

Whether or not evidence actually convinces someone is more a matter of psychology, but I do think that there are characteristics we should look for when determining the strength of the evidence.

 

[packermann]

I think there is a subjectivity to all evidence. Even science is based on the presuppostion that there is law and order in the universe. That cannot be proven. But without this presuppostion we cannot assume that an experiment done a thousand times would always give the same results.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think there is a subjectivity to all evidence. Even science is based on the presuppostion that there is law and order in the universe. That cannot be proven. But without this presuppostion we cannot assume that an experiment done a thousand times would always give the same results.

Then the only other choice is to ignore all evidence and refuse all knowledge. That doesn't sound very practical to me. The presupposition that you speak of gets us through our day just fine. When you step on the brake pedal in your car you don't expect the laws of intermolecular forces to completely change, causing the brake pedal to turn into jelly. You don't expect that your toothpaste has violated the laws of chemistry to become cyanide some time during the night. When you take a breath you don't expect to oxygen to suddenly violate the laws of diffusion and move away from you. Science just uses the same pragmatic presuppositions that you use every second of your life.

More importantly, presupposing constancy in laws and rationality does not make one theory more favorable than the next. Newton's laws and Relativity both demanded constancy of laws, but it was the evidence that showed Newton's laws to be in error. Scientific evidence is independent of the presuppositions made by the scientific method.

 

[quatona]

I think there is a subjectivity to all evidence. Even science is based on the presuppostion that there is law and order in the universe. That cannot be proven. But without this presuppostion we cannot assume that an experiment done a thousand times would always give the same results.

Well, the good part is: We do make experiments thousands of times, and they always give us the same results. So along with confirming our hypothesis about a certain mechanism/causality in the universe, they also give us strong evidence in favour of the presupposition that there are such mechanisms and causalities.

 

[quatona]

Then the only other choice is to ignore all evidence and refuse all knowledge.

Yeah, it´s amazing when some people - upon being empty handed when it comes to evidence for one their ideas - suddenly take comfort in postulating epistemological nihilism.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yeah, it´s amazing when some people - upon being empty handed when it comes to evidence for one their ideas - suddenly take comfort in postulating epistemological nihilism.

Nothing like a Scorched Earth policy. If you don't have evidence, make sure no one else is even capable of having evidence.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I guess I'm open to alternatives...



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.

I appreciate your clear delineation and explanation regarding these existing systems relating to evaluations made in math, logic, even chess, etc. I agree with your general premises here. But, its that last paragraph of yours that I've got in mind the most. It doesn't seem that, as far as epistemological methods are concerned, there is very much agreement as to what can be supposed as 'sufficient evidence' in evaluation of religions, even Christianity. Often the responses are all over the board; and perhaps such things as metaphysics are indeed, or at least can be, too subjective for easy agreement. It just seems that many people imply that their 'methods' of reaching sufficiency are objective when in fact the individual process is subjective. In relation to this, I recently saw in a video that Richard Dawkins said that he wasn't sure that, for him, there even could be any kind of 'sufficiency' to convince him of God or Christianity. I thought that that kind of comment was honest but odd. He admitted that his comment was in fact somewhat at odds with the scientific mindset.

But so it goes I guess...

 

[Sayre]

Nothing like a Scorched Earth policy. If you don't have evidence, make sure no one else is even capable of having evidence.

Ah yes. Stephen Law calls it "going nuclear". Global skepticism is not a good place to be.

 

[CounselorForChrist]

Except we know life exists, we know other planets exist, we specifically know other planets similar to earth exist.

We can't say that Heaven is even a thing that exists. So, if we're to look for God in Heaven, then we need to establish that Heaven is an actual place, to begin with.

Just because earth like planets exist does not prove life exists on them. Proof wise your just assuming life is on them. Also how do you know heaven doesn't exist? I use the same argument I did for God. Unless you checked everything in the universe you cannot say 100% heaven does not exist.

 

[Loudmouth]

Also how do you know heaven doesn't exist?

Without evidence, why should we think that it does? There are hundreds of thousands of entities, deities, supernatural beings, and supernatural realms that we can invent at the drop of the hat. We could ask the same question that you do, how do we know that those don't exist? Do you really consider that a compelling question?

 

[ThinkForYourself]

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'm assuming this is in relation to sufficient evidence for the Christian God's existence.

This is an all powerful, all knowing, God, God, so if He chose to provide evidence, surely he should be able to convince every single person on the face of the earth.

So sufficient evidence would be every single person on the planet believing the Christian God exists, from the moment they are born, regardless of whether they were ever told about the Christian God or not.

 

[sandwiches]

Just because earth like planets exist does not prove life exists on them. Proof wise your just assuming life is on them. Also how do you know heaven doesn't exist? I use the same argument I did for God. Unless you checked everything in the universe you cannot say 100% heaven does not exist.

I don't need to check 100% of the universe to simply NOT claim that a god exists in much the same way I don't need to check 100% of the universe to NOT claim that an eternal, blue elephant exists somewhere in the universe. However, whoever does make the claim, needs to show why we should believe it.