"Hierarchy of evidence"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-02-2013, 07:31 PM
Question "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?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
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.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
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.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 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%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
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.

A network of interlocking facts that support each other creates the web that supports the conclusion.
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.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: