structure for 'Knowledge Criteria'    |     alphabetical list of themes    |     expand these ideas

13. Knowledge Criteria / B. Internal Justification / 3. Evidentialism / a. Evidence

[experiences and facts pointing towards knowledge]

16 ideas
Scientists will give up any conclusion, if experience opposes it [Peirce]
I simply reject evidence, if it is totally contrary to my web of belief [Smart]
We don't distinguish between accepting, and accepting as evidence [Harman]
In the medieval view, only deduction counted as true evidence [Hacking]
Formerly evidence came from people; the new idea was that things provided evidence [Hacking]
How do we distinguish negative from irrelevant evidence, if both match the hypothesis? [Lipton]
Absence of evidence proves nothing, and weird claims need special evidence [McGrew]
Does spotting a new possibility count as evidence? [McGrew]
Every event is highly unlikely (in detail), but may be perfectly plausible [McGrew]
Criminal law needs two separate witnesses, but historians will accept one witness [McGrew]
Maybe all evidence consists of beliefs, rather than of facts [McGrew]
If all evidence is propositional, what is the evidence for the proposition? Do we face a regress? [McGrew]
Several unreliable witnesses can give good support, if they all say the same thing [McGrew]
Clifford's dictum seems to block our beliefs in morality, politics and philosophy [Bayne]
How we evaluate evidence depends on our background beliefs [Bayne]
In English 'evidence' is a mass term, qualified by 'little' and 'more' [Rumfitt]