|
"Hierarchy of evidence"?
|
|
|
|
15-02-2013, 07:31 PM
|
||||
|
||||
 "Hierarchy of evidence"?
Is there such a thing as a hierarchy of evidence?
Say, a high tier would be a "first hand account", mid tier would be a "photographic/video account", and low tier would be an "unverifiable written account". Has some sort of hierarchy been formulated by anyone notable? ~Hallowed are the Ori~ |
||||
|
|
15-02-2013, 08:08 PM
(This post was last modified: 15-02-2013 08:24 PM by StorMFront.)
|
||||
|
||||
|
RE: "Hierarchy of evidence"?
Well, I dont think first hand accounts, photographic/video accounts, unverified written accounts are even evidence. These things just reinforce evidence.
You need a combination of things to determine if something is actually evidence. Example an eye witness account isnt evidence, its hearsay. Now that eye witness with the support of other reinforcements can be relevant to determining actual evidence. Its kinda like the scientific method I guess...the end result is a theory but you need reinforcements to get to a theory. So Evidence would be the king if its a hierarchy, and everyone/thing that is relevant to the evidence or king supports the king. Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be the greatest player in the world, yet the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut away triumphantly. |
||||
|
|
|
15-02-2013, 10:03 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
RE: "Hierarchy of evidence"?
First hand accounts are notoriously unreliable. They'd be down in third tier.
First tier evidence, if you want to divide it that way, would be quantifiable, repeatable experimental results with the calculated margin of error provided. E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2 614C → 714N + e– + ̅νe 2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol It works, bitches. |
||||
|
|
||||
![[+]](images/night/collapse_collapsed.gif)
2 users Like Phaedrus's post |
|
16-02-2013, 07:51 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
RE: "Hierarchy of evidence"?
I don't think that hierarchy is the right model. A web of evidence seems more a propos.
A network of interlocking facts that support each other creates the web that supports the conclusion. Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims. Science is not a subject, but a method. ![[Image: flagstiny 6.gif]](http://www.acbeddoe.com/photos/flagstiny 6.gif) "We all got holes to fill, and them holes are all that's real; Some fall on you like a storm, sometimes you dig your own." |
||||
|
|
16-02-2013, 09:17 AM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: "Hierarchy of evidence"?
(16-02-2013 07:51 AM)Chas Wrote: I don't think that hierarchy is the right model. A web of evidence seems more a propos.I agree...what I was trying to get at. Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be the greatest player in the world, yet the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut away triumphantly. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
| Possibly Related Threads... | |||||
| Thread: | Author | Replies: | Views: | Last Post | |
| Is There Really Any Evidence For Intelligent Design? | Refuting_Ignorance_Every_Day | 18 | 484 |
20-12-2012 04:51 PM Last Post: Bucky Ball |
|
| Evidence: Science, can define the moron | Bishadi | 33 | 914 |
06-09-2012 03:26 PM Last Post: Dom |
|
| Evidence on Evolution and The Big Bang Theory | Alice | 12 | 526 |
04-09-2012 06:23 PM Last Post: Xinoftruden |
|
| Orgonomy: The Evidence | Luminon | 43 | 2,831 |
25-12-2011 07:42 PM Last Post: Chas |
|
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)