Evidence F.A.Q.

Q: What are you trying to do with this blog and website?

A: Simply put we are trying to assemble in an orderly fashion the relevant evidence for the philosophical questions posed. This will be a helpful resource for coming up with answers for some of these ultimate questions.

Q: But, isn't evidence irrelavant to philosophical questions?

A: Not at all! In the case of the four questions posed on the website they each ask about some aspect of how the world is. As such, the answers to these questions (no matter what they end up being) will make empirical claims about the way the world is. Thus, evidence is very relevant to validating these claims.

Q: Why do you avoid Socratic questions such as What is love? What is beauty? etc.

A: These questions are important philosophical questions but do not as easily lend themselves to a search for empirical evidence. For more insight on these questions I would encourage you to go to the companion website Ask-A-Philosopher.

Q: Why do you avoid questions about ethics and morality?

A: These will be dealt with in a separate website coming sometime in 2010.

Q: How do I contribute to the search for evidence?

A: Simple, you can make posts here to the questions or e-mail us via the Evidence website and we will post your comments here for consideration.

What counts as good evidence?

Since this is a search for evidence that will help answer ultimate questions, we need to consider relevant and valid evidence. A good start is the following critical thinking guidelines from a book titled How to Think About Weird Things:

• Just because something is logically possible doesn't mean that it's real.
• Just because a claim hasn't been conclusively refuted doesn't mean that it's true.
• Just because a claim hasn't been conclusively proven doesn't mean that it's false.
• Just because you can't explain something doesn't mean that it's supernatural.
• Just because something is physically possible doesn't mean that it's real.
• Just because something seems (feels, appears) real doesn't mean that it is.
• Just because you believe something to be true doesn't mean that it is.
• Just because a group of people believe that something is true doesn't mean that it is.
• There is an external reality that is independent of our representations of it.
• There is good reason to doubt a proposition if it conflicts with other propositions we have good reason to believe.
• The more background information a proposition conflicts with, the more reason there is to doubt it.
• When there is good reason to doubt a proposition, we should proportion our belief to the evidence.
• There is good reason to doubt a proposition if it conflicts with expert opinion.
• Just because someone is an expert in one field doesn't mean that he or she is an expert in another.
• If we have no reason to doubt what's disclosed to us through perception, introspection, memory, or reason, then we're justified in believing it.
• When evaluating a claim, look for disconfirming as well as confirming evidence.
• When evaluating a claim, look at all the relevant evidence, not just the psychologically available evidence.
• A hypothesis is scientific only if it is testable, that is, only if it predicts something other than what it was introduced to explain.
• Other things being equal, the best hypothesis is the one that is the most fruitful, that is makes the most novel predictions.
• Other things being equal, the best hypothesis is the one that has the greatest scope, that is, that explains and predicts the most diverse phenomena.
• Other things being equal, the best hypothesis is the simplest one, that is, the one that makes the fewest assumptions.
• Other things being equal, the best hypothesis is the one that is the most conservative, that is, the one that fits best with established beliefs.
• We should accept an extraordinary hypothesis only if no ordinary one will do.
• Personal experience alone generally cannot establish the effectiveness of a treatment beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Case studies alone generally cannot establish the effectiveness of a treatment beyond a reasonable doubt.
• When claims of a treatment's effectiveness are based solely on case studies or personal experience, you generally cannot know that the treatment is effective.
• Scientific evidence gained through controlled experiments, unlike personal experience and case studies, generally can establish the effectiveness of a treatment beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Single medical studies generally cannot establish the effectiveness of a treatment beyond a reasonable doubt.
• When the results of relevant studies conflict, you cannot know that the treatment in question is effective.
• New study results that conflict with well-established findings cannot establish the effectiveness of a treatment beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Test-tube studies alone generally cannot establish the effectiveness of a treatment beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Animal studies alone generally cannot establish the effectiveness of a treatment beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Observational studies alone generally cannot establish the effectiveness of a treatment beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Clinical trials limited by lack of a control group, faulty comparisons, or small numbers generally cannot establish the effectiveness of a treatment beyond a reasonable doubt.