Nonevindentialism Analysis

In Clifford’s universal demand for evidence he states that you base all of your beliefs on evidence (138). Clark utilizes this premise to restate the argument in which he will eventually will give reasoning to why the claim is false. In the article he foreshadows the problem with Clifford’s demand for evidence by saying, “ No one would disagree: some beliefs require evidence for their rational acceptability. But all beliefs in every circumstance?”(139) Clark is somewhat supporting the demand for evidence. However, he does not find it rational to believe that evidence is required in every situation.

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

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.

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 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

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

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.

Evidence is admissible when it has any tendency in reasoning to make the case that it is presented to validate or invalidate either more or less probable evidence. Moreover, in order for evidence to be relevant a specific item must not make the fact for which it is offered certain, or even more apparent than not. However, the evidence must have some tendency to increase the possibility of the fact in which it was offered (FindLaw, 2016).

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.

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.

In the grand scheme of trial, evidence is needed to convince jurors to give a verdict of guilt or not guilt. Evidence can take several forms such as physical evidence, substantial evidence. Regardless of what type evidence is presented must be relevant to the case to be admissible. “Relevance refers to any material fact or evidence having a tendency to make the existence of a matter at issue more probable than it would be without said fact (probative value)”(Britz, 2008, p. 344).

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).

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.