4 ms·

> "Evidence of something" means "I can prove something with this data and I'm 100% sure about that this happened". No. Evidence is anything relevant and probat

> "Evidence of something" means "I can prove something with this data and I'm 100% sure about that this happened". No. Evidence is anything relevant and probative. Probative is not the same as dispositive. And only fools are "100% sure" of anything about the exterior world.

pvaldes 5y ago
This is legal jargon. We are not in a legal context so is useless. Evidence in science has a different meaning, Is something that proves or refutes and hypothesis. You can't refute a scientific hypothesis but only a little, is a boolean term. An hypothesis in science is either true or false. Period. The equivalent terms for true or false in law (illegal or not) are much more elastic and adopt the shape of money.
- torstenvl 5y ago
  It is not jargon. It is not domain-specific. Any fact that makes a conclusion more likely or less likely is evidence. It need not be conclusive to be evidence. For example, if we were to find a closed lipid membrane on Mars, or an increase in CO2 or methane or oxygen in its atmosphere, that would be evidence - but far from conclusive evidence - of life.
  - pvaldes 5y ago
    Nobody says "I have a proof of this, but is not really a proof-proof, just a feeling". That would be called "to make your results sexier for publishing purposes and deceiving your audience". An evidence validate an hypothesis that is just a question designed to be falsified, so is a type boolean. ¿Were vikings here in 1021? is boolean. The sum of answers add support to a theory, that isn't boolean stuff. We shouldn't confuse both terms.
    - torstenvl 5y ago
      You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of these words. Perhaps you are not a native speaker? In any case, I am afraid you are terribly mistaken, friend. Evidence remains evidence even when it is not enough to justify being "100% sure." Have a good evening.

pvaldes 5y ago

This is legal jargon. We are not in a legal context so is useless. Evidence in science has a different meaning, Is something that proves or refutes and hypothesis. You can't refute a scientific hypothesis but only a little, is a boolean term. An hypothesis in science is either true or false. Period. The equivalent terms for true or false in law (illegal or not) are much more elastic and adopt the shape of money.

torstenvl 5y ago
It is not jargon. It is not domain-specific. Any fact that makes a conclusion more likely or less likely is evidence. It need not be conclusive to be evidence. For example, if we were to find a closed lipid membrane on Mars, or an increase in CO2 or methane or oxygen in its atmosphere, that would be evidence - but far from conclusive evidence - of life.
- pvaldes 5y ago
  Nobody says "I have a proof of this, but is not really a proof-proof, just a feeling". That would be called "to make your results sexier for publishing purposes and deceiving your audience". An evidence validate an hypothesis that is just a question designed to be falsified, so is a type boolean. ¿Were vikings here in 1021? is boolean. The sum of answers add support to a theory, that isn't boolean stuff. We shouldn't confuse both terms.
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of these words. Perhaps you are not a native speaker? In any case, I am afraid you are terribly mistaken, friend. Evidence remains evidence even when it is not enough to justify being "100% sure." Have a good evening.