Knowledge Tree
evidence
from single model dimensionNo definition has been generated yet — showing the first model analysis as a summary.
In epistemology, evidence is defined as information available to a person that serves as an information indicating truth, often conceptualized as mental states such as perceptual, introspective, memorial, and intuitional experiences experiences as evidence or known propositions epistemologists' definition. It can also encompass physical objects like bloodstains, though primarily mental mental states primary. Evidence supports beliefs probabilistically, making them more likely true probability understanding. Evidentialism, defended by Richard Feldman and Earl Conee in their 1985 paper, holds that epistemic justification depends entirely on a person's evidence, where beliefs are justified if they fit that evidence Feldman and Conee’s evidentialism justification by evidence fit. This internalist view posits evidence as mentally accessible, precluding external factors internalist evidentialism. In Justified True Belief (JTB) theory, justification ensures beliefs rest on solid evidence, not luck, though Gettier cases reveal limitations JTB justification condition Gettier cases issue. Defeaters are evidence undermining beliefs defeater definition, integrated into total evidence assessments internalists use defeaters. Evidentialism contrasts with reliabilism, which ties justification to reliable processes like perception rather than evidence possession reliabilism on processes. Skeptical arguments, such as brain-in-a-vat scenarios, highlight identical evidence yielding uncertainty brain-in-vat evidence. Outside epistemology, IPBES defines traceable accounts linking messages to supporting evidence IPBES traceable account, and machine learning uses evidence for relation extraction (Ma et al.) or fact verification (Li et al.). W. V. Quine emphasized sensory stimulation as ultimate evidence Quine sensory evidence.
Model Perspectives (2)
openrouter/x-ai/grok-4.1-fast definitive 92% confidence
In epistemology, evidence is defined as information available to a person that serves as an information indicating truth, often conceptualized as mental states such as perceptual, introspective, memorial, and intuitional experiences experiences as evidence or known propositions epistemologists' definition. It can also encompass physical objects like bloodstains, though primarily mental mental states primary. Evidence supports beliefs probabilistically, making them more likely true probability understanding. Evidentialism, defended by Richard Feldman and Earl Conee in their 1985 paper, holds that epistemic justification depends entirely on a person's evidence, where beliefs are justified if they fit that evidence Feldman and Conee’s evidentialism justification by evidence fit. This internalist view posits evidence as mentally accessible, precluding external factors internalist evidentialism. In Justified True Belief (JTB) theory, justification ensures beliefs rest on solid evidence, not luck, though Gettier cases reveal limitations JTB justification condition Gettier cases issue. Defeaters are evidence undermining beliefs defeater definition, integrated into total evidence assessments internalists use defeaters. Evidentialism contrasts with reliabilism, which ties justification to reliable processes like perception rather than evidence possession reliabilism on processes. Skeptical arguments, such as brain-in-a-vat scenarios, highlight identical evidence yielding uncertainty brain-in-vat evidence. Outside epistemology, IPBES defines traceable accounts linking messages to supporting evidence IPBES traceable account, and machine learning uses evidence for relation extraction (Ma et al.) or fact verification (Li et al.). W. V. Quine emphasized sensory stimulation as ultimate evidence Quine sensory evidence.
openrouter/x-ai/grok-4.1-fast 88% confidence
In epistemology, evidence is central to justifying beliefs, as evidentialists assert that justified beliefs arise from the possession of evidence, with some defining possession as a mental state representing a proposition p as true evidentialist justification mental state evidence. A major debate concerns testimony: reductionists claim hearers justify beliefs via evidence inferred from the speaker's assertion that p reductionist inference evidence, while non-reductionists seek to treat testimony as a distinct, non-inferential evidential source non-reductionist strategy, and the Assurance View posits testimonial justification as non-evidential, dependent on the speaker's intent unlike intention-independent evidence like fingerprints assurance non-evidential. Alvin Plantinga argues testimony supplies evidence only in truth-telling environments per human design Plantinga testimony critique, and C.A.J. Coady (1992) defines testimony as statements offering evidence to those needing it for disputed questions Coady testimony definition. Social identities affect evidence access and credibility social identities impact, disagreement provides evidence about others' beliefs disagreement as evidence, and David Christensen (2009) explores it epistemically Christensen disagreement paper. The epistemology of ignorance critiques focusing solely on possessed evidence ignorance epistemology challenge, and rational uniqueness holds each evidence body supports one attitude rational uniqueness principle. These views highlight evidence's role in belief formation amid debates over sources like testimony and social influences.
Facts (100)
Sources
Epistemology - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu Dec 14, 2005 14 facts
claimLow-standards or fallible knowledge of a proposition p requires adequate evidence for p, where evidence can be adequate without entailing p.
claimAccording to evidentialism, evidence consists of perceptual, introspective, memorial, and intuitional experiences.
claimEvidentialism asserts that whether one is justified in believing a proposition depends on one's evidence regarding that proposition, and that this evidence consists of one's mental states.
claimGettier-cases are instances of Justified True Belief (JTB) that do not qualify as knowledge because neither the possession of evidence nor origination in reliable faculties is sufficient to ensure that a belief is not true merely because of luck.
claimEvidentialists define justified belief as the possession of evidence, where possessing evidence is defined as being in a mental state that represents a proposition as being true.
claimEvidentialists argue that in the pursuit of true beliefs, individuals ought to believe in accord with their evidence.
claimDependence coherentism, also known as the compromise position, occurs when foundationalists attempt to answer the J-question by appealing to evidence that warrants the reliability of perceptual experiences.
claimThe principle of Necessity asserts that a priori recognizable, necessary principles determine what is evidence for what, allowing one to recognize on reflection whether one's mental states are evidence for a proposition.
claimEvidentialism is classified as a form of mentalist internalism because it posits that evidence consists of mental states.
claimExternalists argue that the justification of beliefs is external, meaning it results from origination in reliable processes rather than the possession of evidence.
claimEvidentialists argue that a belief cannot be justified unless it is supported by evidence, claiming that beliefs formed reliably but without accompanying experiences qualifying as evidence are not justified.
claimReliabilism asserts that the justification of beliefs is a function of the reliability of belief sources, such as memorial, perceptual, and introspective states and processes, rather than evidence.
claimBecause the evidence available to a normal person and a brain-in-a-vat is identical, skeptics argue that a person cannot know they are not a brain-in-a-vat.
claimStandard reliabilism asserts that justification is derived from the reliability of the types of processes in which beliefs originate, such as perception, introspection, memory, and rational intuition, rather than the mere possession of evidence.
Epistemology - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org 13 facts
referenceThomas Kelly authored the entry 'Evidence' for The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, published by the Metaphysics Research Lab at Stanford University in 2016.
referenceVictor DiFate authored the entry 'Evidence' for the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which was archived on June 25, 2021.
claimJustification does not guarantee truth, as a person can form a justified belief that is false based on strong but misleading evidence.
claimA defeater is evidence against a belief or evidence that undermines another piece of evidence.
claimEvidentialism defines a belief as justified if the individual's evidence supports it and the individual holds the belief on the basis of that evidence.
claimEvidentialism is an internalist view asserting that justification depends on the possession of evidence, defined as any information in the individual's mind that supports the belief.
claimThe central concepts in epistemology include belief, truth, evidence, and reason.
claimEpistemologists define evidence for a belief as information that favors or supports that belief.
claimEvidentialists analyze justification by asserting that for a belief to be justified, it must rest on adequate evidence.
referenceTimothy McGrew authored the chapter 'Evidence' in 'The Routledge Companion to Epistemology', published by Routledge in 2011.
claimEvidence is primarily conceptualized as mental states, such as sensory impressions or known propositions, but can also include physical objects like bloodstains or financial records.
claimEvidentialists suggest that memories, intuitions, and other beliefs are valid forms of evidence.
claimEvidence is often understood in terms of probability, where evidence for a belief makes it more likely that the belief is true.
Naturalized Epistemology - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu Jul 5, 2001 13 facts
claimNaturalists in epistemology tend to focus on questions regarding whether we have knowledge in specific areas, whether we draw correct conclusions from evidence, and whether the processes we use are reliable.
claimTraditional epistemologists often assume that evidence for beliefs about the mental states of others consists primarily of observations of their behavior, then question whether that evidence is sufficient to justify those beliefs.
claimEvidentialists are committed to the existence of epistemic facts regarding which beliefs are supported by a particular body of evidence.
claimEvidentialism asserts that the natural facts determining whether a belief is justified are facts about the evidence a person possesses for that belief.
claimTraditional epistemologists often investigate whether specific domains of knowledge, such as other minds, morality, or religious matters, are justified based on the basic evidence available.
claimTraditionalists hold that to be justified in a belief, one must possess evidence supporting the belief and also 'grasp' the connection between that evidence and the proposition being believed.
claimArguments for skepticism often rely on the premise that evidence supports beliefs only if those beliefs are strictly deducible from that evidence.
claimIf epistemic support facts are natural facts and justification is defined by evidence possessed and epistemic support, then justification is defined in entirely natural terms, removing the need for evidentialists to rely on supervenience to defend naturalism.
claimThe evidential support described in Roderick Chisholm's principle (R) is defeasible, meaning one could possess evidence that they are not really seeing something red despite being appeared to redly.
claimEvidentialism holds that people who possess the same evidence are necessarily justified in believing the same things.
claimThe recursive nature of defining evidence through justified beliefs does not inherently invalidate the naturalistic status of the evidentialist definition of justification.
claimEvidentialism defines epistemic justification as a state where a person is justified in believing a proposition at a specific time if and only if the evidence the person possesses at that time supports believing that proposition.
referenceRichard Fumerton argued in 1995 that justification requires grasping the connection between evidence and the proposition believed.
Social Epistemology – Introduction to Philosophy - Rebus Press press.rebus.community 9 facts
claimThe more likely it is that an individual and a disagreeing party are competent epistemic peers, the stronger the evidence provided by that disagreement that the individual's own view might be incorrect.
claimRowley (2016) argues that the two-step reductionist solution implies that a speaker's testimony that a proposition is true provides the listener with evidence in support of that proposition, even without the listener receiving the speaker's original evidence.
claimPeer review is valuable because it allows individuals to identify others who are at least as likely to be correct, and if disagreement occurs, it prompts a decrease in confidence and a search for new evidence.
claimRational uniqueness (RU) is the principle that each body of evidence supports only one attitude toward a proposition.
perspectiveThe most effective strategy for non-reductionists is to provide an account of testimony as evidence that is both independently plausible and permissive enough to classify testimony as a non-reducible form of evidence.
claimDisagreement functions as evidence about the world by providing information about the beliefs held by other people, which alters an individual's own body of evidence.
claimWhen evidence equally positions an individual with respect to a proposition and its negation, suspension of judgment is the unique justified attitude according to rational uniqueness.
claimHumans value eyewitness accounts and expert opinions because they can correct false beliefs, given that individuals are fallible and limited in their first-hand evidence about the world.
claimRational permissivism implies that for a single body of evidence, both a proposition and its negation could be justified for belief.
Epistemology of Testimony | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy iep.utm.edu 8 facts
accountIn the example provided by Goldberg (2005), a testifier (T) tells a hearer (S) that there is milk in the fridge based on evidence that is usually misleading because an eccentric writer (A) usually replaces the milk carton with an empty one, but A forgot to do so on this occasion.
claimWeiner (2003b) argues that viewing testimony as an assurance does not contradict the requirement that a recipient must have evidence for their testimonially-based beliefs.
claimThe epistemology of testimonially-based belief concerns the epistemic status of a subject's belief, specifically evaluating whether the belief is justified, rational, warranted, supported by evidence, or constitutes knowledge.
claimListeners typically assume that a speaker possesses sufficient evidence for their own purposes when making an assertion, and would be disturbed to learn the speaker believed their own evidence was insufficient.
claimPeter Graham argues that a speaker testifies if their statement that p is offered as evidence that p.
claimAlvin Plantinga criticizes the view that testimony is necessarily evidence, arguing instead that testimony only supplies evidence when the contingent human design plan provides for it, specifically in an environment where testifiers generally speak the truth.
claimC.A.J. Coady (1992) argues that a speaker testifies only if they possess the relevant competence and their statement that p is directed to those in need of evidence for whom p is relevant to a disputed or unresolved question.
claimAlvin Plantinga (1993) and Robert Audi (2006) suggest that testimony differs from sources like perception because testimonially-based beliefs can be defeated or trumped by other sources of evidence in ways that perception cannot.
Epistemic Justification – Introduction to Philosophy: Epistemology press.rebus.community 8 facts
claimEvidentialists are typically internalists because they consider evidence to be information that is internal to the mind, as one cannot use information outside the mind in thought.
claimEvidentialists are epistemologists who hold the view that justification is entirely a matter of a person’s evidence.
claimEvidence is defined as the information available to a person, serving as an indication of truth to that person.
claimFor evidentialists, a proposition p is probable for a person if their overall evidence supports p better than not-p, meaning p is more likely to be true than false given the information that person possesses.
claimInternalist evidentialist theories do not require a no-defeaters clause because a person’s total evidence at any given time already accounts for any potential defeaters.
claimInternalists employ the notion of defeaters as a tool for evaluating what a person's total evidence indicates.
perspectiveEvidentialist foundationalists agree that justification has a foundationalist structure and is supported by evidence, but they disagree on the specific mechanisms of justification for basic and non-basic beliefs.
claimEvidentialists accept the view that epistemic justification is entirely a matter of a person's evidence, where evidence is defined as an indication of truth that can be used in thought.
Epistemological Problems of Testimony plato.stanford.edu Apr 1, 2021 5 facts
claimThe 'Third Big Question' in social epistemology asks whether a hearer's belief, formed on the basis of a speaker's testimony, is justified by evidence, and if so, what the source of that evidence is.
claimSome epistemologists argue that testimonial-based beliefs are not justified by evidence, but rather by non-evidential assurances or the reliability of the processes that produced the belief.
claimProponents of the Assurance View argue that testimonial justification is non-evidential because a speaker's assurance that a proposition p is true only counts in favor of p if the speaker intends to provide that assurance, whereas evidence (like a fingerprint) counts in favor of a proposition regardless of the agent's intentions.
claimEpistemologists question whether testimonial justification is based on evidence or on non-evidential assurances.
claimReductionists argue that a hearer's testimonial-based belief is justified by evidence derived from the hearer's own inferences, specifically the inference from the premise that the speaker said that p to the conclusion that p is true.
Social Epistemology - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu Feb 26, 2001 5 facts
referenceNick Leonard examines the relationship between testimony, evidence, and interpersonal reasons in his 2016 paper 'Testimony, evidence and interpersonal reasons'.
referenceMona Simion's 2023 paper 'Resistance to Evidence and the Duty to Believe' discusses the normative obligations regarding belief in the face of evidence.
claimThe epistemology of ignorance challenges the traditional epistemic view that assessment should focus solely on how well a subject handles the evidence they already possess, arguing that subjects often lack evidence they ought to have.
claimDavid Christensen argued that disagreement can serve as evidence in his 2009 paper 'Disagreement as Evidence: The Epistemology of Controversy'.
claimDorst (2023) provides a model demonstrating that mostly rational agents can polarize in response to the same evidence in predictable ways.
Epistemology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Fall 2019 Edition) plato.stanford.edu Dec 14, 2005 4 facts
claimThe breadth of knowledge derived from testimony raises the question of whether personal experience provides a sufficient evidence base to justify the reliability of all testimonial sources.
claimSome evidentialists define the possession of evidence for believing a proposition p as being in a mental state that represents p as being true.
claimEvidentialists assert that justified beliefs are justified because of the possession of evidence.
claimHigh-standards or infallible knowledge of a proposition p requires p-entailing evidence, whereas low-standards or fallible knowledge of p requires adequate evidence for p that does not necessarily entail p.
Course Schedule - Texas Law law.utexas.edu 4 facts
referenceThe classroom component of the Judicial Internship Program at the University of Texas School of Law covers topics including charging instruments, discovery, search and seizure, jury selection, public integrity prosecution, trial tactics, evidence, post-conviction DNA, and oral advocacy.
claimPrerequisites for the Intensive Litigation Advocacy Skills course at the University of Texas School of Law are Evidence (83) and Advocacy Survey (87D).
procedureThe Advocacy Survey course at Texas Law requires Evidence as a prerequisite or concurrent course.
claimThe course with ID 296W at Texas Law requires a course in Evidence as a pre- or co-requisite.
Epistemology | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy iep.utm.edu 3 facts
referenceRichard Feldman and Earl Conee present and defend an internalist account of justification in their 1985 paper 'Evidentialism' where a belief is justified or unjustified in virtue of the believer’s evidence.
claimThe justification condition in the JTB account was intended to ensure that knowledge is based on solid evidence rather than luck or misinformation.
claimA belief is considered justified if it is obtained in the right way, which typically involves sound reasoning and solid evidence rather than luck or misinformation.
Virtue Epistemology - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu Jul 9, 1999 2 facts
claimCassam (2019) distinguishes between the attitude of epistemic malevolence, defined as a voluntarily-adopted policy (stance), and the attitude of epistemic insouciance, defined as an affective and involuntary disregard for truth, evidence, and expertise (posture).
claimPhilosophers including Axtell & Carter (2008), McDowell (1994), Roberts & Wood (2007), and Zagzebski (1996, 2009) argue that epistemological terms like 'knowledge', 'evidence', 'justification', 'duty', and 'virtue' cannot be adequately defined or fully explained in purely non-normative vocabulary.
Social Epistemology - Open Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science oecs.mit.edu Jul 24, 2024 2 facts
claimSome critics argue that the conditions for epistemic peerhood are so stringent that they are rarely met, and the mere fact of disagreement may serve as evidence that the other person is not an epistemic peer.
claimIn networks where information is compartmentalized, agents who are ignorant of evidence against a hypothesis are likely to continue pursuing it, which increases the number of alternative hypotheses pursued and reduces the chance of hypotheses being rejected too early.
The Hard Problem of Consciousness | Springer Nature Link link.springer.com 1 fact
claimThe separation of mind and matter renders experience and evidence a function of the mind with no determinable relation to the material world.
Social epistemology - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy rep.routledge.com 1 fact
claimAn individual's social identities, roles, or locations impact their epistemic lives by affecting the experiential knowledge they are likely to acquire, their ability to access evidence or information, and the amount of credibility they are granted as informants.
Practices, opportunities and challenges in the fusion of knowledge ... frontiersin.org 1 fact
referenceThe paper 'Dreeam: Guiding attention with evidence for improving document-level relation extraction' by Ma, Y., Wang, A., Okazaki, N. proposes a method for guiding attention with evidence to improve document-level relation extraction.
Unknown source 1 fact
claimIn the IPBES methodological assessment report on the diverse values and valuation of nature, a traceable account is defined as a guide to the section in the chapters that contains the evidence supporting a given message and reflects the evaluation of the type of evidence.
Self-Consciousness - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu Jul 13, 2017 1 fact
claimHilary Kornblith argues that non-reflective animals possess the capacity to rationally revise beliefs in the face of evidence.
Rationalism Vs. Empiricism: Sources of Human Knowledge ijesh.com 1 fact
claimRationalism seeks certainty and universality in knowledge, whereas Empiricism values evidence and the adaptability of knowledge to changing perceptions.
Naturalism in Epistemology - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu Jan 8, 2016 1 fact
claimEvidentialism posits that a belief is justified to the degree that it fits the subject's evidence, meaning the possession of evidence is what makes a belief justified.
Virtue Epistemology - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu Jul 9, 1999 1 fact
accountThomas Kuhn (1962) claims that scientists reacted to the discovery of x-rays with both surprise and shock, and while they could not doubt the evidence, they were "clearly staggered by it."
Construction of Knowledge Graphs: State and Challenges - arXiv arxiv.org 1 fact
referenceLi et al. investigate the correctness of a fact in a knowledge graph by searching for evidence in other knowledge bases, web data, and search logs.
10 Naturalized epistemology resolve.cambridge.org 1 fact
quoteW. V. Quine stated: "The stimulation of his sensory receptors is all the evidence anybody has had to go on, ultimately, in arriving at his picture of the world."