Knowledge and Evidence

One definition of knowledge is true belief based on strong evidence. What makes evidence "strong" enough and how can this limit be established?

The making of knowledge is the process in which personal opinion is fortified by pragmatic evidence. It is to my belief that, evidence is a keystone in the justification of truth, because it is something solid and concrete. Significance of evidence is also magnified by our society as we develop. In major areas such as: scientific investigations, judicial examinations, historical assessments and many other field of knowledge, the value of creditable evidence are strongly advocated. While evidence is a strong factor in eliminating doubts of knowledge, different types of evidence can also affect the reliability of the truth claim which it supports. The fine line dividing valuable evidence and unreliable proof has since been drawn and debated over from the first schools of thoughts to today's broad fields of knowledge. Likewise, I will also call upon my own experience and understanding to draw my own line in the grey vicinity of this spectrum.

Before the declaration of my knowledge claims, I would like to clarify my understanding of evidence and its characteristics; which will be the foundation of this discussion. On a broad view, evidence can be identified as a fact-like assertion that proves or disproves Ð'Ї to a certain degree Ð'Ї a notion to be true, and trustworthy. On a closer examination, I realized, it is the evidence's degree of relevance and authenticity that establishes its value and strength. Relevance, I believe, is the relationship which the evidence has with the theory that it is trying to uphold. As two things with strong connections tend to support each other, evidence with close relationship to the hypothesis, is also able to support the truth within that assumption. Authenticity, on the other hand, is the creditability of evidence. Only when the evidence is valid, will the knowledge that it is trying to justify be accurate. Furthermore, evidence's strength also lies within its objectivity and creditability. With less personal bias, evidence will be regarded as objective, therefore easier to admit universally. At the end, creditability finalizes strong evidence through the influence of trust. Even though strong evidence can stand as a fact of its own, they still can be employed in the defence of false knowledge. With the diverse roles evidence can play, the classification of sound, truth-validating evidence still proves to be difficult. Finally, with the two sides of the spectrum identified, I will now seek the line of partition.

With half of the world believing in a religion of some kind, it is hard to ignore the fact that many people's beliefs are based on evidence that seem to have little precision and authenticity. However through the inspection of a more plain case, such as The Turin Shroud, we will see the evidence that justifies the belief of religion and the acceptance of holy relics are endorsed by personal bias. With faith, creditability of evidence is increased, but remains subjective. If asked, different religion groups, even different individuals will have different belief and views on religion. In my opinion, this is the result of different interpretation of feeble evidence. Going back to The Turin Shroud, "the Vatican has always been jittery, preferring to keep a certain distance, perhaps fearful that here was a religious banana skin just waiting for an unwary foot." Similarly, cases where sceptical evidence is able to be convincing in situations, is by the means of increased creditability through authority, and acquaintance. For example, as children, we gain knowledge from our teachers and parents because of the trust of authority and acquaintance. Power of trust is not only exercised in small community groups, but also in fundamental social conditions. Expert and authority testimony can both be viewed as dubious evidence under the support of trust.

Candidly, trust may strengthen controversial evidence, but I believe there are still large gaps of reasonable doubts that this kind of evidence does not cover. Forced to bend the line that I have already begun to draw, I rotate the direction of my thoughts towards the field of science.

Distinguished by their consistent approach to knowledge, the science sociality always seem to strive for the most solid and authentic evidence to justify their theories. Trying to uncover the origin of its popularity, I found myself examining science's fundamental scheme of acquiring evidence Ð'Ї the scientific method. The overwhelming success that scientific evidence has obtained in the justification of truth is, in my belief, the result of rational reasoning and empirical testing. The linkage of evidence and hypothesis in a scientific experiment are always restricted by rigorous rules, so that all facts, or evidence, must be logically relevant to the experimentation. A good example of this would be: the controlled experiment, where a monitored environment prevents the incorporation of unrelated article that could jeopardise the precision of the outcome. However, with all the technical jargon and concepts that is sometimes grasped by so few, why do the public still trust the intricate scientific proofs that almost seem mystical? The answer to the question lies in the authenticity of empirical evidence. Like our diurnal expectation of a western setting sun, replicable scientific proofs are able to reinforce its own genuineness. Providing hard-nosed proof and coherent evidence, the scientific method is becoming increasingly utilized by society today; especially in the field of criminal justice. "With crime levels soaring through the roof, it became blindingly obvious that the old standbys of crime detection Ð'Ї shoe leather, informants, and methodical elimination (though these still form the bedrock of most investigations) Ð'Ї were not enough to stem the onslaught." True enough; the birth of criminology has indeed proven itself to be great help for the modern justice system. Through scientific investigation, relevant and authentic evidence such as DNA and fibre tests are able to aid the process of judicial examinations.

Evidence can be factual and relevant,