Quotes About Evidence

The aim of scientific thought, then, is to apply past experience to new circumstances; the instrument is an observed uniformity in the course of events. By the use of this instrument it gives us information transcending our experience, it enables us to infer things that we have not seen from things that we have seen; and the evidence for the truth of that information depends on our supposing that the uniformity holds good beyond our experience.

A jury verdict is just a guess - a well-intentioned guess, generally, but you simply cannot tell fact from fiction by taking a vote.

So I got on with the business of lawyering away at the evidence. Minimizing it. Defending Jacob.

Even the wettest violence, in the end, is cooked down to the stuff of court cases; a ream of paper, a few exhibits, a dozen...witnesses. The world looks away, and why not?

A jury could only declare my son 'not guilty', never 'innocent'.

Well," he said, "it's a very circumstantial case. There's the thumbprint,

The origin of the Christian faith is therefore inexplicable unless Jesus really rose from the dead.

We have seen that multiple lines of historical evidence indicate that Jesus' tomb was found empty on Sunday morning by a group of his women followers. Furthermore, no convincing natural explanation is available to account for this fact. This alone might prompt us to believe that the resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation.

Naturalism Naturalism is the belief that only natural explanations (as opposed to supernatural ones) should be considered. Because a designer is defined as supernatural—beyond nature—naturalism rules out this explanation, regardless of evidence.

Thus, although arguments and evidence may be used to support the believer's faith, they are never properly the basis of that faith.

No solo las Escrituras implican fuertemente la creación ex nihilo, sino que la evidencia empírica de un comienzo absoluto del universo parece tener ramificaciones teológicas trascendentales

is where Christian apologetics comes in. If Christians could be trained to provide solid evidence for what they believe and good answers to unbelievers' questions and objections, then the perception of Christians would slowly change. Christians would be seen as thoughtful people to be taken seriously rather than as emotional fanatics or buffoons. The gospel would be a real alternative for people to embrace.

A good argument must obey the rules of logic; express true premises; and have premises more plausible than their opposites.

Conclusion On the basis, therefore, of both philosophical and scientific evidence, we have good grounds for believing that the universe began to exist. Since whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning, it follows that the universe has a cause of its beginning.

To say that everything in the bible is to be believed , simply because it is found in that volume, is equally absurd and pernicious... To discard a portion of scripture is not necessarily to reject the truth, but may be the highest evidence that one can give of his love of truth.

But before you can tell who someone was and how they died—and you won't always be able to tell—you start with the Big Four: sex, race, age, and stature. Whenever

The speckled moth changes its wing coloring; bacteria develop drug resistance. Why should this count in favor of the thesis that whales are derived from ungulates, or men from fish?

science demands a terrible price - that we accept what experiments tell us about the universe, whether we like it or not.

evidence that suggests private schools, on average, do not offer students a competitive edge in academic performance over their peers in public schools,

No scientific theory can claim absolutely certainty.

There's evidence, too, that being good at maths is tied to a more general capacity to spot hidden structures in data. This could explain why it's common to find people who excel at both maths and music, and why training at chess can help improve maths scores – both music and chess have complex data structures at their heart.

We do not experience time flowing, or passing. What we experience are differences between our present perceptions and our present memories of past perceptions. We interpret those differences, correctly, as evidence that the universe changes with time. We also interpret them, incorrectly, as evidence that our consciousness, or the present, or something, moves through time.

objective knowledge is indeed possible: it comes from within! It begins as conjecture, and is then corrected by repeated cycles of criticism, including comparison with the evidence on our 'wall'.

This inductively justifies the conclusion that induction cannot justify any conclusions.