Talk:Evidence

message: French, German and Polish (perhaps also some others) articles concern philosophical meaning of the therm "evidence" - mainly cartesian, cantian, rickertian, husserlian. The English article (which seems to be realy bad :)) doesn't relate to the philsophical meaning. So I (as an author of the Polish article - pl:Oczywistość) I'm worried whether newly added interwikis to pl, de and fr are actually appropiate. I think that if they don't, we should use here an unusual way of making interwiki. 83.24.105.156 (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the english article is a bit dubious, and does not cover the philosphical meaning of evidence.  Looking at the French and German articles though, they are very light on, expecially the French one.  I have requested a translation of your Polish article Wikipedia:Translation/Evidence.  I will have a go at redoing the English article. Pee Tern (talk) 05:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: You might also want to have a look at Scientific evidence, which seems to more philosphical than scientific, and perhaps I might have some significant restructuring and merging to do!? Pee Tern (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Interwiki

message: "This article does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2007)"
This is an ironic warning statement to find attached to an article on "Evidence".68.197.49.1 (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Irony

message: The article begins with a link to the article on Assertion, which links to the particular article on "logical assertion". I believe the evidence article can be improved by linking, instead, to the article on truth claims, or perhaps some other assertion article, chosen carefully from the assertion disambiguation page. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear hear - or here here. MaynardClark (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assertion or Truth Claim 

message: Shouldn't causality get a mention on the Evidence page? Doesn't legal evidence seek to identify that the accused caused the result (e.g. someone can't be found guilty of murder unless it can be shown that they caused the death). And doesn't the scientific method use evidence to show a cause and effect association? --Rwilkin (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence of Causality 

message: Under the "Intellectual evidence" section, one can read " either of the two understood evidence in purely logical or formal terms, like many schools of thought tend to understand today. His theory of knowledge proves to be much richer.". I thought that maybe it would be good to substantiate this claim with some references perhaps, as it appears to need an argument. Which are the contemporary 'schools of thought' to which are we comparing Aquinas and Aristotle here? Without a concrete reference, it appears a bit unsubstantiated. Also, about the formal or logical approaches. Again, I would like to see references. There is a lot of discussion in contemporary philosophy on evidence, and not all of it is about logic of confirmation or theory of probabilities. There are important, substantial epistemological questions that have been asked about evidence and possession of evidence. For instance see Conee, Earl & Feldman, Richard (2004). Evidentialism: Essays in Epistemology. Oxford University Press; Williamson, Timothy (2000). Knowledge and its Limits. Oxford University Press; Kelly, Thomas (2008). Evidence: Fundamental concepts and the phenomenal conception. Philosophy Compass 3 (5):933-955.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epistemologins (talk • contribs) 19:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical perspective