Nonevindentialism Analysis

The evidence collected in an investigation helps make or break a case. Although sometimes the evidence is not physical it can still be powerful. Graat v. The Queen, [1982] 2 SCR 819, 1982 CanLII (SCC) is a case where the crown used opinion evidence in order to win their case. Opinion evidence is hard to make admissible in court because of the exceptions that arise from it. If the witness is an expert in the matter he/she does not need to have seen the event to give his/her opinion and may use the terms “I think or I believe” to be described as opinion evidence. (Bartley, 2016) The observations made, by the witnesses involved, influence their opinions. Their knowledge on the matter, although not experts also influenced their opinions.

Trump Evidence Example: Trumps evidence of saying that Pennsylvania has lost 35 percent of its manufacturing jobs since 2001, per the Bureau of Labor Statistics, he was right. His evidence was Recency his evidence was up to date which is good evidence.

Mr Gailey and the prosecution hold incompatible and conflicting views on Kris Kringle being Santa Clause. The prosecution presents an Evidentialist challenge to the belief in Santa Clause. The evidentialist challenge at its core sees all beliefs as being illegitimate until proven to be legitimate. David Humes proportionality principle simplifies the evidentialist challenge.

William James (1897), on the other hand, attempts to define the permissible cases in which it is intellectually respectable to believe without sufficient evidence. James (1897) begins by providing three criterion for judging beliefs: either beliefs are 1) living or dead; 2) forced or avoidable; or 3) momentous or trivial.

Kathryn Schulz is an excellent writer who wrote an essay, Evidence, regarding her ways of thinking and how different types of “evidence” prove said different ways of thinking. “We rely on it […] to advance our understanding of the world” (Schulz, 362). She explains in great detail throughout the entire piece the importance of evidence in everyday life. The evidence she is explaining is the proof of why people think how they think or why they do what they do. “We care about what is probable. We determine what is probable based on our prior experience of the world” (Schulz, 366).

In W.K Clifford’s Essay he states that “It is wrong, always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” This argument is not totally wrong but does have some problems to it. In Clifford’s essay he explains a scenario with a ship owner and someone who he will be sending out to the sea. The ship owner does no believe the ship to be good enough, ready enough or in other words sea worthy to be sent out to the sea. Instead of checking the ship to see if it is ready to be sent out to the sea because it Is time consuming, he decides to send the ship out anyway. In the end, the ship ends up sinking in which case, Clifford considers to owner to be guilty of the ship sinking because he should have believed that ship

In his article “The Ethics of Belief (Clifford, 1877) W.K. Clifford sought to argue that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence” (as cited on p190). The aim of this essay is to establish whether indeed this view offered by Clifford, when considering religious faith, is convincing. In order to do this I will consider the arguments that Clifford put forward, including that which to believe anything based upon insufficient evidence always does harm and so is wrong. Such a statement is in direct opposition to those religious believers who regard their blind faith as a virtue and for whom evidence is something that is

Along with senses, evidence I believe is very straightforward when dealing with how we know. Without evidence the court system would not be able to

In The Will to Believe by W.K Clifford, he presents the argument that it is always wrong to believe something without sufficient evidence. Most people would agree with this claim but I believe that this is not completely true. Clifford's argument is based on lack of evidence which is completely understandable, the argument is solely reliant on facts and statistics. It doesn't show the other side of the argument, which is personal belief and trust. My two cents on this matter is that you can believe something based on the past outcomes or history.

In the readings from Clifford and Clark it covers the vague issue of whether or not we can believe something based on if the person has enough information or proof to validate their belief. Clifford starts off with the fact that Not having enough evidence, but forming a belief anyway. Suppressing doubts that the belief is false, or avoiding evidence to the contrary. He states that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” This illustrates how he believes that just Clifford believes that is something is something then something must happen. He declares that believing is not a private matter. Believing for unworthy reasons not only weakens a person's powers of self-control, it also adversely

This section provides us with two selections from the essays of William K. Clifford (1845-1879) and William James (1842-1910). Clifford's essay, The Ethics of Belief, is based on the concept of evidentialism. This concept 'holds that we should not accept any statement as true unless we have good evidence to support its truth'; (Voices of Wisdom, 346). James wrote his essay, The Will to Believe, as a response to Clifford's essay where he endorsed a philosophy called pragmatism.

“Physical evidence cannot be wrong; it cannot perjure itself; it cannot be wholly absent. Only its interpretation can err. Only human failure to find it, study and understand it can diminish its value.”  (Harris vs. United States, 1947).

William Clifford argues that we should never “believe anything on insufficient evidence” (Philosophy of Religion, p. 103)1 and if we do decide to believe in God without any evidence it would be considered “wrong,” however, William James’ The Will to Believe essay argues, in response to Cliffords essay, that believing anything without sufficient evidence is “an irrational rule” (James, p. 109)2. James’ essay suggests that there is some level of truth to the fact that no one can decide what it is that you truly believe in because if that were to be true somewhere along the way someone else probably forced those beliefs on you, either directly or indirectly. He suggests that your true beliefs are the ones that you have without any rhyme or reason. James goes to say that it is better to believe in something wholly, even if there is no evidence to prove it because that may be the only way to find your true faith, while Clifford believes that it is safer to believe in nothing until you have clear evidence so you do not have to run the risk of possibly believing in a inauthentic belief.

I am a Catholic, but I mainly am open-minded when it comes to hearing about other religions and scientific explanations. I also don't try to spread the word of God around because I feel that it unnecessary and that everyone is free to believe in whatever they want to believe. Between evidentialism and non-evidentialism, I mainly will go with evidentialism and how it can be used to prove Gods existence. With non-evidentialism, people mainly will see the odds, or the outcomes of their decisions like after death. People will think about what they will gain and lose if they believe in God or not. They will also consider what would happen if God does or does not exist. Critical thinking will probably be used with non-evidentialism and the people

Evidence is very important in the criminal justice system. Evidence is relevant to many thing, such as cases. Detectives and polices uses evidence. All evidence should be reliable to any case. Evidence is leads to the truth. the material reflection of things, the amalgam of thought, deed, action, the recitation of how the world and its properties fit into a particular set of facts. Sometimes evidence is not a reflection of reality. The weight of evidence are mostly one presumptions are rules and accepted conclusions and only competent of evidence is entitled to weight. In criminal cases, the burdens of proof is the prosecutor responsibility, but in civil cases the burdens of proof is the plaintiffs responsibility. The burdens of proof is an allocation, distribution of evidence. In the court of law, prosecution and defense counsels evaluate the quality of evidence. However, the law enforcement collects, preserves and packages for the court room. Evidence must be in good-standing and accurate to the case.