Difference between revisions of "Hierarchy of evidence"
(Created page with "<hide> page type::article thing type::hierarchy category:hierarchies </hide> ==About== The hierarchy of evidence is a ranking of different types of [[evidence]...") |
(refinement) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
# verified [[hypothesis]] | # verified [[hypothesis]] | ||
# repeatedly verified hypothesis | # repeatedly verified hypothesis | ||
| + | # demonstrably sound reasoning from agreed-upon facts (see [[rationality detection]]) | ||
| − | Evidence of a higher-numbered type generally trumps evidence of a lower-numbered type. | + | Evidence of a higher-numbered type generally trumps evidence of a lower-numbered type. Each type of experience may have a range of credibility, and it's entirely possible that the upper end of a given type should trump the lower end of another -- e.g. the opinion of a professional with years of experience in a given field should arguably trump circumstantial evidence that is not overwhelming, unless there is reason to suspect the motivations of the professional. |
Revision as of 20:52, 29 April 2013
About
The hierarchy of evidence is a ranking of different types of evidence, to be used as a guideline for determining which evidence should be considered more credible when more than one type is available.
The following list is a first pass, and should not be considered complete, definitive, or certain:
- hearsay
- intuition
- experience
- circumstantial evidence
- physical evidence
- verified hypothesis
- repeatedly verified hypothesis
- demonstrably sound reasoning from agreed-upon facts (see rationality detection)
Evidence of a higher-numbered type generally trumps evidence of a lower-numbered type. Each type of experience may have a range of credibility, and it's entirely possible that the upper end of a given type should trump the lower end of another -- e.g. the opinion of a professional with years of experience in a given field should arguably trump circumstantial evidence that is not overwhelming, unless there is reason to suspect the motivations of the professional.