“Evident”, “evidence” and “scientific evidence”

Evidence, specifically scientific evidence.


Post #305  paarsurrey Wrote:

While I do not contest one’s understanding of “evidence” as a term used in science yet it is to be noted that it is only useful in physical and material realms, which on its own merit is much valuable, but human life is much more than that and there are fields where science is of little to no use. The word “evidence” is borrowed by science from the language which used it much before “science” took its present form. Limits and bounds of science are obvious, therefore.
There are evident observations, one won’t deny, which are used in knowing the non-evident . The methodology in which with the help of evident we know the non-evident is understood to be evidence.

Post# 307 paarsurrey wrote:

Science is in the process of knowing, it does not claim that its knowledge even in the “the material world” is perfect. Does it, please?
Not to speak of the other aspect of human activities and life, which are beyond the limits of science and its bounds. Right, please?

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: