Eric's Rules of Evidence
(Under Construction) (This is like alpha software....)
I spend a lot of time reading controversial literature. It is not in the least bit uncommon to find sources that seem to be in direct disagreement or outright contradiction of one another. As a result I've had to develop certain semi-formal "rules of evidence" that help me sift through competing claims and make a best guess at the truth where disagreement between two human beings exists. These decisions are based on probability, not certainty; however, a rationally derived decision is better then one based on guesswork or sentimental personal preference.
No doubt talking to a good trial lawyer or judge would yield more advice on this topic. For those of you who are interested, here is the system, roughly speaking, that I use below. Note that this list is never complete, nor is it in a particular order (though where noted certain items have explicit priority over other items).
1. Documented evidence over undocumented evidence.
2. Generally educated authority over uneducated authority.
3. Trustworthy witnesses over untrustworthy witnesses.
4. Admission of hostile source over claims of a friendly source.
-Compare competing claims carefully to see if they can be reconciled. VERY often claims that appear to disagree are slightly non-contradictory and each is true after a fashion, it turns out. Unfortunately this commonly occurs when one person (or both!) is fudging or suppressing certain information or otherwise playing a little fast and loose with the evidence.
5. In science and historical science, more recent sources over older sources.
6. In documented, written (classic) history, older sources over newer sources (with caveats).
7. Sources with a belief in infallible judgment for sins (lying) over sources with no belief in a future divine judgment for lying.
8. Witness with an education in a relevant field over a witness with no education relevant to that field, no matter how much other education.
9. Sober witness over excited or sensationalistic claims.
10. Appealing to the majority (of experts or otherwise) is not completely useless, but is a very weak form of argument by itself.
11. Sources arguing from an internally consistent intellectual position over sources arguing from a compromise position. (See upcoming paper on why compromise is a lousy way to discover truth.)
12. Magnanimous and/or candid hostile sources over hateful or secretive/deceptive hostile sources.
13. Sources relying on careful logic or the use of caveats over those without logic structure or using sweeping statements without appropriate caveats.
- (Realistically if not ideally) we prefer sources with conclusions and arguments that dovetail with our own paradigm. This is a comment on how we all operate, not necessarily how we should operate.
14. Sources that define themselves and their terms carefully over those that commit the equivocation fallacy.
15. Humble sources over proud or egotistical sources. (I mean true humility, not self-deprecating smarminess; the kind C.S. Lewis once described, I believe, in Mere Christianity.)
16.
Return to
Eric's InfoCenter Main Page 
Return to Reason & Revelation