If I have evidence for something, how do I know it is sufficient evidence for justifying belief in something?
For anything, god, a crime, or whether I’m standing here right now.
- 7 months ago
If the 'relative' evidence, that you have, is solid, then you can draw a 'logical conclusion' too justify that 'relative' belief, action or observation.
Be reminded that a 'Theory', should never be considered as 'solid evidence'; as, neither should be Hypothetical conclusions.
Justification of 'anything' will only be relative in the perspective of an individual; and, how the individual accepts this relative perspective as evidence.
- PLv 77 months ago
You test it
- Anonymous7 months ago
Apply the scientific method. Test it, repeat it. Have other people replicate it. It has to be non-subjective. Tell us what this "evidence" is. Frankly most of YA doesn't understand what that words means.
- Climate RealistLv 77 months ago
You don't necessarily do. For one thing, evidence =/= proof. Your evidence may be equally validly used to support a competing hypothesis. Or it could be outweighed by contradictory evidence.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- All hatLv 77 months ago
That's not a simple question. In fact you can get a Ph.D. in just that - epistemology - the science of certainty. With evidence, in particular, you have to rule out every other thing that could possibly have caused the evidence to exist, and if you can, then, and only then, can you infer what you do from it. And the inference has to be logically sound. Renee Descartes first opened up that can of worms for us. He asked the same question you did here, of himself, and realized he couldn't be certain of anything - then it dawned on him that at lease he must exist because there he was thinking about it. Hence his famous quote - I think, therefore I am. But even with that, he allowed that he could be dreaming and/or we could all be in a Matrix - Brains in a Vat, as he put it.
- kundaliniLv 67 months ago
it is usually demonstrated through a mathematical abstraction, so that the "senses" can not be deceived.
What do the maths say?
- Jeffrey KLv 67 months ago
In science, no theory can ever be 100% proven. So you must decide for yourself how much uncertainty is acceptable to you. Every scientist and journal and science organization has different standards.
- 7 months ago
On their account, knowledge is undefeated justified true belief — which is to say that a justified true belief counts as knowledge if and only if it is also the case that there is no further truth that, had the subject known it, would have defeated her present justification for the belief.
This means that it is justified to believe a thing if there is no known higher justification for something else.
- ♜Ⓢⓚⓨ ❍ Ⓓⓞⓥⓔ ♜Lv 47 months ago
Everyday you must redefine what knowledge really is. All you have is your awareness, your faculties and the world which you come to familiarity. Out of this constantly shifting ocean you must make definitions. Often you just have fuzzy notions through feelings of what the big ideas are. Big ideas are ideas which cannot be conceived of in fullness until long pursuit through feelings and experience. One would imagine that a person will become truly wise who brings these feelings to full resolution and understanding. Such is brilliance.
- Anonymous7 months ago
Physical-atom-based empirical evidence is limited to what early Heidegger discussed in his "Being and Time"--and the (unfinished) answer is: "no thing is forever" (512 pages).
"Belief" is "be-love" (from PIE *leubh-", "to care, to love"; middle transition term OE "bileave," "confidence, faith in a religion"). So, whatever you cherish, there is your caring, your love.
This is all with ontology: I Am, I love, I believe, in an epistemological something: God, an atom-based tree, etc. At this level of complexity, Godel's Incompleteness work shows that in any given "belief system" there are unanswerable beliefs (truth-claims, etc.). Hence, human awareness is necessarily incomplete. The level which permits absolute surety is in this ballpark: "Jesus answered and said to them, 'Even if I am bearing witness concerning Myself, My testimony is true, because I know from where I came and where I am going. But you do not know from where I come or where I am going.'" (John 8:14) This is part of the opportunity to draw nigh to God by letting this Mind abide, aka living Life for Christ's, Truth's, sake, by putting off the old "loves of the world" (as "first love"): it's called "self-transcendence" and "faith." Much may be known, but absolute certitude is not something simply of this world.