Relevance, I believe, is the relationship which the evidence has with the theory that it is trying to uphold. As two things with strong connections tend to support each other, evidence with close relationship to the hypothesis, is also able to support the truth within that assumption. Authenticity, on the other hand, is the creditability of evidence. Only when the evidence is valid, will the knowledge that it is trying to justify be accurate. Furthermore, evidence’s strength also lies within its objectivity and creditability. With less personal bias, evidence will be regarded as objective, therefore easier to admit universally. At the end, creditability finalizes strong evidence through the influence of trust. Even though strong evidence can stand as a fact of its own, they still can be employed in the defense of false knowledge. With the diverse roles evidence can play, the classification of sound, truth-validating evidence still proves to be difficult. Finally, with the two sides of the spectrum identified, I will now seek the line of partition.
With half of the world believing in a religion of some kind, it is hard to ignore the fact that many people’s beliefs are based on evidence that seem to have little precision and authenticity. However through the inspection of a more plain case, such as The Turin Shroud, we will see the evidence that justifies the belief of religion and the acceptance of holy relics are endorsed by personal bias. With faith, creditability of evidence is increased, but remains subjective. If asked, different religion groups, even different individuals will have different belief and views on religion. In my opinion, this is the result of different interpretation of feeble evidence. Going back to The Turin Shroud, “the Vatican has always been jittery, preferring to keep a certain distance, perhaps fearful that here was a religious banana skin just waiting for an unwary foot.” Similarly, cases where sceptical evidence is able to be convincing in situations, is by the means of increased creditability through authority, and acquaintance. For example, as children, we gain knowledge from our teachers and parents because of the trust of authority and acquaintance. Power of trust is not only exercised in small community groups, but also in fundamental social conditions. Expert and authority testimony can both be viewed as dubious evidence under the support of trust.
Candidly, trust may strengthen controversial evidence, but I believe there are still large gaps of reasonable doubts that this kind of evidence does not cover. Forced to bend the line that I have already begun to draw, I rotate the direction of my thoughts towards the field of science.
Distinguished by their consistent approach to knowledge, the science sociality always seem to strive for the most solid and authentic evidence to justify their theories. Trying to uncover the origin of its popularity, I found myself examining science’s fundamental scheme of acquiring evidence ¯ the scientific method. The overwhelming success that scientific evidence has obtained in the justification of truth is, in my belief, the result of rational reasoning and empirical testing. The linkage of evidence and hypothesis in a scientific experiment are always restricted by rigorous rules, so that all facts, or evidence, must be logically relevant to the experimentation. A good example of this would be: the controlled experiment, where a monitored environment prevents the incorporation of unrelated article that could jeopardize the precision of the outcome. However, with all the technical jargon and concepts that is sometimes grasped by so few, why do the public still trust the intricate scientific proofs that almost seem mystical? The answer to the question lies in the authenticity of empirical evidence. Like our diurnal expectation of a western setting sun, replicable scientific proofs are able to reinforce its own genuineness. Providing hard-nosed proof and coherent evidence, the scientific method is becoming increasingly utilized by society today; especially in the field of criminal justice. “With crime levels soaring through the roof, it became blindingly obvious that the old standbys of crime detection ¯ shoe leather, informants, and methodical elimination (though these still form the bedrock of most investigations) ¯ were not enough to stem the onslaught.” True enough; the birth of criminology has indeed proven itself to be great help for the modern justice system. Through scientific investigation, relevant and authentic evidence such as DNA and fiber tests are able to aid the process of judicial examinations.
Evidence can be factual and relevant, but personal bias and misleading manipulation can still hamper the search of truth and knowledge. For example, some evidence may provoke emotions within the people, which can be deluding; the insertion of overly complicated evidence may waste time and also cause confusion. While in different areas of knowledge ¯ such as the area of arts ¯ personal bias within evidence can have different effects, in other more civic fields, objectivity still remains as bedrock of true knowledge. In order to restrict prejudice and hoodwink of proofs, many society and states have developed rules that monitor the objectivity of evidence. For instance, the American Federal Rules of Evidence, Article III, Rule 403, states: “evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” In this example, we can see that the American justice system addresses the problem of subjective evidence. In fact, there are still many other similar rules, not just in the American law codes, but also in the Canadian, British and many other countless nations’ judicial systems that address the same problem of feeble objectivity within evidence. Now, with my own line dividing strong evidence and weak proof drawn, I will look back at its problems, since nothing is prefect.
At the beginning of this essay, the first thing that came to my mind, after reading the question, was the trail of O.J. Simpson. Though full of strong evidence, the prosecution was unable to prove O.J. Simpson was guilty of double murder, thus, this example lead me to think about he problems of strong evidence.
The trail of Orenthal James Simpson was considered one of the cases where the prosecution had exceedingly articles of reasonably relevant, authentic, objective, and creditable evidences against the defendant. But, the out come of the trial shows other wise, when O.J. Simpson was declared: not guilty of murder. Many believe that this controversial outcome was the result of Simpson’s ability to employ expensive lawyers and resources; but my belief is much different. Like I have stated before, at the time of the trail, scientific evidence was overwhelmingly popular, because it is more compelling. However, the prosecutors were unaware that forensic science can be a double-edged sword. While most convincing evidence are strong evidence, we cannot neglect the fact that, not all of them can cover up every area of doubt. “Every addition [of evidence] opens up one more potential defense loophole.” Evans’ view, to me is very rational. Because we cannot re-act every part of history, and human technology can not find every exact point in the universe, finding the perfect and indubitable evidence is just too infrequent. This imperfection of evidence can only be minimized, but cannot be eliminate, this eventually will result in few controversies. As we find better ways of finding stronger knowledge, the frequency of the controversies will also decrease.
Subsequently, I believe, relevance, authenticity, objectivity and creditability are all strong factors in the acquirement of strong evidence, which ultimately affects the validation of knowledge. With different situation and within different fields of study, the degree of these four factors that determines strong evidence may vary, because of the difference in how truth is viewed. In this essay, I have presented my own view and draw my own line which may incorporate my own personal predisposition, but I believe, parts of my mark will still remain on that spectrum as genuine knowledge.