What is evidence?
"Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence
"Ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence
"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/evidence
Origin: Middle English: via Old French from Latin evidentia, from evident- 'obvious to the eye or mind'
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/evidence
Sources of evidence
We are not composing graduate level theses here. So, any source of evidence is acceptable. This includes any website such as Wikipedia, personal websites (however, not your own website), Youtube videos, podcasts, etc. Of course, all the usual sources of evidence are acceptable: books, articles, journals, magazines, etc.
Strength of evidence
Not all evidence carries the same force. The better quality your evidence, the weightier your evidence would be. Quoting from a prestigious university would carry more weight than quoting from a high school senior's homework posted on his personal website.
Also, if you present evidence from commonly accepted sources, then it would give your evidence more strength. Even better is to present evidence that is from your opponent's side. So, if you are a non-Christian and you present evidence from a Christian website, it would be strong evidence.
Acceptability of evidence
Some things do not count as acceptable forms of evidence. Though they can be presented, they do not bolster one's arguments and do not fulfill rule 5 (Support your assertions/arguments with evidence).
Examples include:
- opinions and assertions
- anecdotal evidence
- what most people believe
Empirical/Non-empirical evidence
Though the best forms of evidence are empirical evidence (things that can be measured, observed, quantified), non-empirical evidence are still allowed, but in a limited context. Philosophical and metaphysical arguments usually do not involve empirical evidence, but rely on non-empirical evidence. However, the hard sciences relies on empirical evidence and do not accept non-empirical evidence.
Multiple sources of evidence
It is best if you can present more than one source for your evidence (or at least be able to present more than one if asked). If there's only one place in the whole world that you can find evidence from, then it will be held suspect. But, if you can find two dissimilar sources that say the same thing, it will carry more weight.
Quote mining
Be careful not to quote others and lift their words out of context. For example, saying God does not exist because the Bible states, "there is no God" would be an example of quote mining.
Accessibility of evidence
Evidence should ideally be accessible by the general public. When quoting material not accessible by the general public (professional journals, out of date books), provide substantial quotes to allow the reader to understand the material. Journal abstracts are typically accessible to the public and may be quoted freely.
Referencing evidence
Evidence presented should provide a source. References should be as specific as possible. If you quote a book, provide the book information as well as the page number. If you quote a website, give the full URL.
Presenting evidence
Moderator: Moderators
- nygreenguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2349
- Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:23 am
- Location: Syracuse
Post #2
The vast majority of the strongest, most descriptive evidence is in journals which are usually not available to the public. Generally, if I cite a journal in debate I have access to it and I will post a large portion of it, but their value is significant in debates.Evidence should ideally be accessible by the general public. If you quote a journal that is only available to subscribers, since it cannot be verified by readers, it will not have much value for debates.
- nursebenjamin
- Sage
- Posts: 823
- Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 11:38 am
- Location: Massachusetts
Post #3
What is scientific evidence?
The issue of evidence came up recently in the Science subforum; specifically, the issue was what constitutes as evidence for a scientific theory.
A scientific theory is nothing more than a set of explanations; and evidence for a specific scientific theory is the consistency to which the explanation fits with observations of the natural world. If the explanation confirms what is known about the natural world, then the explanation under discussion has support. Scientific evidence is therefore the observations, experiments, theories within other fields, predictions, possible falsifications, etc. that support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.
By the way, scientific theories need to be (A) based on a large number of observations, (B) useful (must make definite predictions about the results of future observations), (C) falsifiable, (D) correctable, and (E) provisional (open to experimental checking, and can not assert absolute certainty).
The issue of evidence came up recently in the Science subforum; specifically, the issue was what constitutes as evidence for a scientific theory.
A scientific theory is nothing more than a set of explanations; and evidence for a specific scientific theory is the consistency to which the explanation fits with observations of the natural world. If the explanation confirms what is known about the natural world, then the explanation under discussion has support. Scientific evidence is therefore the observations, experiments, theories within other fields, predictions, possible falsifications, etc. that support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.
By the way, scientific theories need to be (A) based on a large number of observations, (B) useful (must make definite predictions about the results of future observations), (C) falsifiable, (D) correctable, and (E) provisional (open to experimental checking, and can not assert absolute certainty).
The professional literature is a gold standard in science and should serves as a strong source. However, many of the current and recent articles will be available online only through subscription. Fortunately, your local public library probably has some of the more widely read periodicals available on location or via loan. Article abstracts are always available online, and may still serve as useful sources on this forum. Most people aren’t going to understand anything beyond the abstract anyhow.otseng wrote: ... Evidence should ideally be accessible by the general public. If you quote a journal that is only available to subscribers, since it cannot be verified by readers, it will not have much value for debates.
- otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 19406
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 175 times
- Been thanked: 302 times
- Contact:
Post #4
I think citing large portions of it would be a good compromise.nygreenguy wrote: The vast majority of the strongest, most descriptive evidence is in journals which are usually not available to the public. Generally, if I cite a journal in debate I have access to it and I will post a large portion of it, but their value is significant in debates.
Yes, usually abstracts are accessible to the public. And they serve as a good source for evidence.nursebenjamin wrote:Article abstracts are always available online, and may still serve as useful sources on this forum. Most people aren’t going to understand anything beyond the abstract anyhow.
Re: Presenting evidence
Post #5This is an excellent summary! Could we attach a link to this page at rule 5 in the rules page?
On this matter, I'd simply like to underscore the need to keep clear whether the conversation is scientific or philosophical. Not only has it been a difficulty here, I've noticed an decrease in the ability to distinguish between these fields in published work as of late.otseng wrote:Empirical/Non-empirical evidence
Though the best forms of evidence are empirical evidence (things that can be measured, observed, quantified), non-empirical evidence are still allowed, but in a limited context. Philosophical and metaphysical arguments usually do not involve empirical evidence, but rely on non-empirical evidence. However, the hard sciences relies on empirical evidence and do not accept non-empirical evidence.
Last edited by Jester on Thu Apr 07, 2011 5:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
We must continually ask ourselves whether victory has become more central to our goals than truth.
- otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 19406
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 175 times
- Been thanked: 302 times
- Contact:
Re: Presenting evidence
Post #6I've updated the OP with the discussions about journals.
Done.Jester wrote:Could we attach a link to this page at rule 5 in the rules page?
- Miles
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4615
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 394 times
- Been thanked: 1419 times
Re: Presenting evidence
Post #7Why? Even the Bible is rife with contradictions and outright mistakes. A book supposedly authored or inspired by god.
.
- Wootah
- Savant
- Posts: 8608
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
- Has thanked: 130 times
- Been thanked: 74 times
Re: Presenting evidence
Post #8Does posting links to other websites count as evidence? I'm all for further reading but arguments should be made by the individuals debating right?
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.
Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826
Looking for head to head debates, especially on contradictions or the Trinity. PM me your topic.
"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image
."
Edit preferences to remove all the fluff: ucp.php?i=ucp_prefs&mode=view
Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826
Looking for head to head debates, especially on contradictions or the Trinity. PM me your topic.
"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image

Edit preferences to remove all the fluff: ucp.php?i=ucp_prefs&mode=view
-
OnlineJoeyKnothead
- Under Probation
- Posts: 20357
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 3445 times
- Been thanked: 2216 times
Re: Presenting evidence
Post #9I'm no mod, but I'd think more evidence is better.
Of course there's the issue of us, in our busy lives, being expected to wade through and find what data one considers pertinent. To that end, I try to link and quote the particulars. I'm not much for video, but the same idea applies - link, quote, timestamp.
I typically just tell what it is I have to tell, and don't always link particulars - while being ready to support or retract.
My experience, if biased, indicates a good bit of religionists don't quite grasp the notion that in debate, evidence is king. In my interactions with the humans, I see often religionists're unprepared, or incapable of defending their core claims - to the point of wandering off when challenged. But who am I, I recently got my hind whooped by a mule.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin