| v1.19.0 | (+6) | |||
| v1.18.0 | (+180/-6) | |||
| v1.17.0 | (+156/-90) | |||
| v1.16.0 | (+49) /* See also */ | |||
| v1.15.0 | (+20) linking [[standard of evidence]], which probably needs a separate article | |||
| v1.14.0 | (+36/-37) | |||
| v1.13.0 | (+214/-547) | |||
| v1.12.0 | (+1661/-468) rewrote page | |||
| v1.11.0 | (-59) Undo revision 4216 by PeerInfinity. I don't see how it's relevant. It could go in [[Teacher's password]] and [[Authority]] or even [[Semantic stopsign]] and [[Dangerous knowledge]]. | |||
| v1.10.0 | (+59) |
For example, suppose I tell you that the original author of this paragraph wore white socks while writing it. (In fact, I do so tell you.) You now have rational evidence that the author of this paragraph wore white socks.socks, because I'm more likely to tell you this if I am wearing white socks, than if I'm not (Note: This doesn't prove that I am wearing white socks; this is why it is 'evidence'). But it is not scientific knowledge because there is no experiment you can do for yourself to verify whether it is true. And it is not legal evidence - you could testify in court that I had told you my socks were white, but you could not testify that my socks were white.
Rational evidence is the broadest possible sense of evidence, the Bayesian sense; rationalsense. Rational evidence about a hypothesis H is any observation which has a different likelihood if some hypothesisdepending on whether H is trueholds in reality or alternatively false.not.
Rational evidence is distinguished from narrower forms of evidence, such as scientific evidence or legal evidence. For evidencea belief to be scientific, it must be, in principle, publicly accessible; you should be able to do an experimentrepeatable experiments to verify the knowledge.belief. For evidence to be admissible in court, it must meet other legal standards.e.g. be a personal observation rather than hearsay.
For example, suppose I tell you that the original author of this paragraph wore white socks while writing it. (In fact, I do so tell you.) You now have rational evidence that the author of this paragraph wore white socks. But it is not scientific evidence because there is no experiment you can do for yourself to see whether it is true. And it is not legal evidence - you could testify in court that I had told you my socks were white, but you could not testify that my socks were white unless you had observed it for yourself.white.
Rational evidence in the broadest sense may be useful only for private thinking, or thinking in the company of trusted friends. Scientific, political, or legal processes may (for good reasons) operate with less trust, and impose special and additional standards of admissible evidence. The scientific method can be viewed as a special standard of admissible evidence protecting a pool of extra-strong beliefs.
Conversely, a belieffact can be rationally knowableguessable without generatingit having generated the sort of specially strong evidence that would qualify itknowledge of the fact as "scientific",; just as a police detective may rationally know the identity of the city's criminallocal crime boss without having the special evidence needed to prove it in court.
For example, suppose I tell you that the original author of this paragraph wore white socks while writing it. (In fact, I do so tell you.) You now have rational evidence that the author of this paragraph wore white socks. But it is not scientific evidenceknowledge because there is no experiment you can do for yourself to seeverify whether it is true. And it is not legal evidence - you could testify in court that I had told you my socks were white, but you could not testify that my socks were white.
The scientific method can be viewed as a special standard of admissible evidence protecting a pool of extra-strong beliefs. Conversely, a fact can be rationally guessable without it having generatedgenerating the specially strong evidence thatwhich would qualify knowledge of the fact as "scientific"; just. Just as a police detective may rationally know the identity of the local crime boss without having the special evidence needed to prove it in court.
Rational evidence is the broadest possible sense of evidence, i.e., the Bayesian sense. Rational evidence about a hypothesis H is any observation which has a different likelihood depending on whether H holds in reality or not.
Rational evidence is the broadest possible sense of evidence, asthe Bayesian sense; rational evidence about a hypothesis H is any observation which has a different likelihood if some hypothesis H is true or alternatively false.
Rational evidence is distinguished from narrower forms of evidence, such as scientific evidence or legal evidence,evidence. For evidence to be scientific, it must be, in principle, publicly accessible; you should be able to do an experiment to verify the knowledge. For evidence to be admissible in court, it must meet other legal standards.
For example, suppose I tell you that the original author of this paragraph wore white socks while writing it. (In fact, I do so tell you.) You now have rational evidence that the author of this paragraph wore white socks. But it is any observationnot scientific evidence because there is no experiment you can do for yourself to see whether it is true. And it is not legal evidence - you could testify in court that canI had told you my socks were white, but you could not testify that my socks were white unless you had observed it for yourself.
Rational evidence in the broadest sense may be used to update your beliefs.
This notion of evidence isuseful only useful for private inference, not for any kindthinking, or thinking in the company of politicaltrusted friends. Scientific, political, or adversarial process. At a minimum, an adversarial debate should establish a common standardlegal processes may (for good reasons) operate with less trust, and impose special and additional standards of evidence, so as to avoid a breakdown of useful deliberation. This is the basic contribution of theadmissible evidence. The scientific method andcan be viewed as a special standard of legaladmissible evidence standards.protecting a pool of extra-strong beliefs.
Conversely, a belief can be rationally knowable without generating the sort of specially strong evidence that would qualify it as "scientific", just as a police detective may rationally know the identity of the city's criminal boss without having the special evidence needed to prove it in court.