[RyEgswuCsn]

We are talking about different kind of evidence here. There are two sense entries under the word "evidence" per Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary[1]:

1. the facts, signs or objects that make you believe that something is true 2. the information that is used in court to try to prove something

I was talking about sense 1, you were talking about sense 2.

I think the article is also about sense 1 of the word "evidence".

[1]: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/englis...

[smsm42]

It's the same thing. The court just has more procedure around it, but outside the court it's the same thing. If somebody tells you "I saw John dining with Jack's wife last night at the restaurant" then unless you hired a private detective or the restaurant has cameras inside and for some reason is willing to grant you access to the recordings, there's no way for you to verify this claim. However, claiming "there's no evidence that happened" is nonsense - you just heard the evidence, and any reasonable person would conclude you did. Does it make you believe it's true, by itself? That depends, how much do you trust the person who told you that? How much are you sure they aren't mistaken? You seem to be confusing "evidence" with "ultimate proof" - and the Oxford is not doing its best job to set you straight, to be honest - if something makes you believe it's true, it's certainly evidence, but not all evidence will make you instantly believe whatever it suggests it's true - you would need certain quality and quantity of evidence for it to become proof.

What is worse, the media manipulators know that distinction. They do not actually confuse it - they know "without ultimate proof" and "without evidence" are different things. They never use it interchangeably, as it would happen if they, like you, were confusing the two. Instead, they use "no evidence" when they should have said "no ultimate proof" or "evidence, insufficient to make a definite conclusion" - to confuse you and present the matter as if there's actually only one possible conclusion, and you shouldn't even try to inquire about what it's based on, since there's literally nothing - "no evidence" - that you could look at. This is usually false, because if there was truly nothing, there would be little point of them trying to convince you. What they are trying to do is to prevent you from considering the evidence there exists, by falsely claiming "there's no evidence" and thus you should accept the conclusion pre-made for you. It doesn't mean if you consider the evidence you'd necessarily arrive at the opposite conclusion - but they are not willing to take the risk, they do not trust you. You can take that as another piece of evidence for how strong their argument actually is.

[RyEgswuCsn]

> claiming "there's no evidence that happened" is nonsense - you just heard the evidence, and any reasonable person would conclude you did.

I am not sure about that. If someone claims that you had stole something from a store, which you know you didn't, responding with something like "where is your evidence/you have no evidence" sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

[smsm42]

if they say they saw you stealing - yes, that's evidence. If they just say "you stole" then yes, the correct question would be "why do you think so, on what evidence" - but a first-hand experience is definitely evidence. Moreover, often it'd be the only evidence available (not all stores have 100% video coverage). Of course, as always, the purported witness could also be lying, but if they claim they personally saw you stealing, this definitely counts at least as evidence, if not proof.