Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 14,638
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
It does not support the contention. It disproves the counter.I tend to use evidence in the idea of "that which may disprove, when known, some set of potential causalities"Do yoj have an actual sorce for the definition you posted? I am curious if there are other definitions alongside this one.
I find a leaf on the road. It disproves real causalities absent leaves.
I find a footprint in my house of a boot that is not mine... It disproves causalities wherein my home has not been entered by someone who is not me.
And so on.
Evidence is a fact (the leaf) that supports a contention reality isn't absent leaves. The more difficult questions in life are rarely as cut and dry. This discussion revolves around what happened billions of year ago minus eyewitnesses. Like detectives at a crime scene any evidence we have is after the fact.
This is a failing of faith, trying to support rather than trying to kick out the support.
Evidence cannot support something. Axioms cannot be proven as necessary, nor sufficient.
Evidence can only narrow down the possibilities through disproving certain causalities, indicating them as purely imaginary or nonsense.
Verification happens through disproof. Trying to do it the other way is the core of foolishness and blind faith.