|
|
|
|
|
by RyEgswuCsn
893 days ago
|
|
I would argue that true evidence (for a claim) can be defined as such piece of information that, when a third party is invited to examine it, they would arrive at the same conclusion as what was claimed. Scientific evidence ought to meet the standard. If someone produces a video showing Bob shot Alice (let's assume faking the video is technically impossible), that would also constitute "true evidence". In that sense, I wouldn't consider witness' testimonies "true evidence". |
|
It's a fact that legal evidence in court does not need to be "verifiable". There are rules for what counts as admissible evidence of course (complex rules at that), but AFAIK none of those requirements is "verifiable".
As I suggested in another comment, there's a big difference on how to evaluate scientific claims (which is required to be reproducible) and some random factual claim (eg. what did I have for breakfast). There is no way I can give "true, verfiable evidence" for what I ate for breakfast, but generally people take my word for it, and my word is "good enough" evidence.
There are other types of claims where, because the evidence is inherently hard to obtain, even "low quality" evidence is taken into account, eg. digging up a clay pot could be evidence of civilization or human settlement in an area. (Surely no one in their right mind would say to support such a claim you need to somehow independently verify it, right?)