Science Circumstantial evidence is normally used in science only to support other forms of evidence so that you can figure out what happened My Thoughts on this According to the definition of Circumstantial Evidence presented by Wikipedia All of Physics is demonstrated by circumstantial evidence It is impossible for any one person to directly observe any of the constituent Laws that would have to make up any proposed Theory of Everything In fact all experiments are essentially recipies to extract circumstantial evidence that can support only one conclusion or disprove an existing theory If you want to support this sentence as valid and informative you ll need to explain what other forms of evidence exist and how scientists use them A discussion of how different fields interpret evidence would be way less ambiguous as it stands this one liner doesn t explain much For example Physicists and Chemists use experimental data to develop empirical and quantitative models whereas a Sedimentologist might use fossils and other relative dating methods to analyse a particular facies when absolute dating methods are impractical Both are examples of Circumstantial Evidence but the philosophy behind their use and justification are distinct David Meister