Evidence is some sort of information that can be used to prove or disprove a belief that one may have. Depending on what the belief is, evidence can come in many different forms, anywhere from images to physical objects. When these different types of information stimulates someone’s brain, the person starts thinking, connecting it to other sources of information that they may already know. By doing so, they validate or invalidate each new information to create evidence that may support their claims.
Though it can sometimes be difficult to discern what constitutes as evidence in any given context, the common factor for all evidence is its truth and how factual it is. Since evidence-based logic relies on truths, the base evidence must not be false. An argument can be built upon a weak foundation, but it will not get far, just as a house with a weak foundation will
…show more content…
Just as easily as blowing over a house of cards, an argument can be dismantled if one of its evidences is deemed to be untrue. To establish whether or not the evidence is strong and factual or not, one must do extensive research on the topic. Strong evidence is easy to authenticate due to the fact that many sources will confirm that it is a fact. But for pieces of information that are not often cited, one must use much precaution before presenting it as an evidence because if it turns out that it isn’t, then the person will definitely embarrass themselves in front of their peers which is something that no one wants to do.
While the debate surrounding King’s Memorial is very controversial, one thing is certain to me. The fact that his memorial monument can be improved upon is so
McCormick, Charles T. Handbook of the law of evidence. 2nd ed. St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1972. Print.
William Clifford author of the “Ethics of Belief” creates the argument that it is always wrong for anyone to believe anything upon ‘insufficient evidence’. What does Clifford define evidence as and what is sufficient? Clifford’s argument is more scientific. Basing our beliefs off methodical approaches. If we base all our decisions off sufficient and what we declare to be reliable then what do we stand for? We have our own credentials to believe things even if we do not know why. These beliefs could be innate and
The terms Experts witnesses and opinion evidence are intertwined in the sense that opinion evidence is mostly adduced by an expert in a given field such as medicine or engineering. Opinion evidence is a separate, independent and inference that an expert gives so that to help the court to clearly understand the facts of the case, the expert may be an expert by virtue of his training or experience in a given field of study which must exist.
Evidence essentially comes in two forms: verbal or physical. For instance, verbal evidence could be spoken evidence acquired from a wiretap. Physical evidence could include DNA, blood, or bodily samples. Another reliable origin evidence is digital documentation. “As technology has become more portable and powerful, greater amounts of information are created, stored, and accessed” (GEDJ). Over the past few decades, technology has advanced to extreme levels! The most common technology used to find digital evidence are cell phones, computers, tablets, external storage devices, GPS locators, and various other devices (GEDJ). Text messages, social media posts, pictures, etc. are becoming more common data in investigations of the modern era. “Digital evidence can come from both suspects and victims, as all involved parties may have their own personal devices that are relevant to the investigation” (GEDJ). If they are available, computers, phones, social media and much more are very useful sources of gathering data for a criminal case. For instance, both the suspect and the victim may have text messages on their cell phones that could add to the search. “In some criminal cases, digital evidence can be useful if the suspect had associated with it. In some cases it can lead you in the wrong direction or to the wrong people. Or it could simply be useless if the suspect didn 't use anything
If an argument or statement of fact is really true, it will welcome all evidence rather than withhold it. A typical example of the category of suppressed evidence would be the fallacy of “False Dilemma”. It may look something like “If Jimmy goes to bed, he can have a cookie. If he does not go to bed, he will not get a cookie. Therefore, Jimmy will either go to bed with a cookie or stay up without one.” This argument fails to take into account important evidence—that Jimmy could possibly steal a cookie and stay up, or perhaps he will be put to bed with to cookie at all. Either way, there are a multitude of outcomes that could come from this situation; not just two. We as humans tend to leave out important evidence in order to create the result we
evidentiary fact in science, just like all other facts of biology, physics, chemistry, etc. It
This is something I would like to take away and infuse into my own writing, because I normally rely on facts to sway my reader, but I now see that presenting an opposing view can prove that one’s own argument would be strong enough to stand against doubt. It is like testing the foundation of a home you build yourself, how will you know if it is strong if the wind doesn’t blow? I would also like employ the pattern Primack uses to present his evidence. He layers facts along with quotes from the personal accounts of individuals who have an understanding of the topic, so it makes their words relevant. I feel as though this creates an argument that appeals emotionally, is relevant, and supported by accurate
Kelly James Clark, who is a former Professor of Philosophy at Calvin College, wrote “Without Evidence or Argument” which is published in Reason and Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy. The article starts off with the scenario of a stranger giving a man a note that his wife is cheating on him. However, there is no evidence and her behavior has not changed at all, how should he react? Does he take the note as complete truth and confront her or should he find security in the trust that he has built up with his wife over the past years together (Feinberg 138)? Clark uses this example, as well as others, to bring attention to the connection between significant beliefs and evidence. Furthermore, Clark goes on to state his
King peacefully pleads for racial tolerance and the end of segregation by appealing to the better side of white Americans. His attempt to persuade America about the justice of his cause, and to gain support for the civil rights movement was emotionally moving. He spoke to all races, but his rhetoric was patriotic, and culturally similar to, and focused on African-Americans. He was able to make practical use of a history many Americans are proud of. The use of repetition reinforced his words making it simpler and more straightforward to follow. His speech remains powerful because it is still relevant today, like economic injustices and stereotyping. This reading can be applied to remedying current issues of stereotyping, racism, and discrimination by changing white racial resentment and eliminating racial
evidence, so it is hard to find out which one is right. Some of the
For example, according to a CNN article entitled,” 'Blue-eyed butcher ' sentenced to 20 years,” “A medical examiner testified he was able to count 193 wounds on the body, with the actual number of stab wounds well in excess of that” (Jakobsson, 2010, para. 6). Pictures were also presented to the jury to show the disfigured body. Another piece of evidence leading to the conviction of Susan Wright was the autopsy done that showed drugs in Wright’s system. The author of CNN stated, “They also suggested she may have drugged him with gamma-hydroxybutyric acid, known as the "date-rape drug," low levels of which were found in Jeffrey Wright 's system” (Jakobsson, 2010, paragraph 10). One last conclusive piece of visual evidence was the presence of two of Jeffrey’s ex-girlfriends. “Misty McMichael testified Wright beat her repeatedly during their two-year relationship and tried to control her every move” (Jakobsson, 2010, paragraph 13). McMichael also claimed that Wright had pushed her down the stairs 104 times and at one point even locked her in a room (Jakobsson, 2010, paragraph 14). This evidence was in favor of Susan Wright. The impact of this visual evidence was significant in many ways. Evidence is proof and proof cannot be made up, only misinterpreted. Therefore, the excessive amount of stab wounds found on Wright’s body along with the drugs found in his system was
In order to understand how to compile evidence for criminal cases, we must understand the most effective types of evidence. This topic is interesting because there are ample amounts of cases where defendants have gotten off because of the lack of forensic evidence. If we believe forensic evidence is so important and it affects our decisions, then maybe we need to be educated on the reality of forensic evidence. If we can be educated, then we may have a more successful justice system. If we have a more successful justice system than the public could gain more confidence that justice will be served. In order to do this, we must find what type of evidence is most effective, this can be done by examining different types of evidence.
hat for a belief to be true knowledge, it must be supported by evidence. Evidentialism also claims
While cerebrating for a brief period of time on writing, belief and evidence; defining what notion is can be a difficult task. According to our dictionaries and books, credence is an acceptance that a statement is true or that something subsists; trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something. However, beliefs are built on how an individual accumulates evidence and decides what makes sense to him/her utilizing his/her logic or what suits him/her best. From there, people decide what evidence to bear in mind, and that is how an individual makes conclusions.
Burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt is standard of proof from the prosecutor, which must be surpassed to convict an accused.