Evidence

Evidence indicates the on visual inspection, indubitable Identifiable or imminent, occurring with a particular truth claim full insight. In a philosophical-historical point of view, the term is filled out evidence from the items with your own content.

Etymology

The noun derived from the adjective evidence is evident, which was borrowed from the Latin word evidens ( German seen, apparently ) in the 18th century. This adjective is the Latin verb videre ( German: see) based on the stems from the German word vision. The Latin noun Evidentia is translated with clarity.

A specific language knows the Austrian German with the formulation somewhat in evidence in the sense of keeping something in mind. This task was namely the historical evidence office as a military intelligence service in the Austro -Hungarian monarchy.

Accruals

The philosophical concept of evidence must not be confused with the English word evidence, which is translated as proof or evidence in the legal field with testimony. In this respect, the English name of evidence-based medicine for a medical trend by German translation Evidence-based medicine is not reproduced correctly. Similarly, one speaks in the social sciences of empirical evidence, if theories are developed or confirmed by empirical data based on empirical surveys.

Another distinction concerns the concept of anecdotal evidence: This is not usually an elaborated by scientific means evidence in the philosophical sense. The anecdotal evidence precludes a scientific methodology and thus specifically a necessary reproducibility.

Positions

In philosophy there are different epistemological you any specific suggestions as to how a specific term in order to be connected is to analyze - and positions, whether and to what extent and context of human knowledge as certain evidence are available. Many epistemologists assume that knowledge is based on the Gerechtfertigtsein of opinions and ultimately on a foundation that can be described as consisting of " evidence ". To understand the concept of evidence or certainty and the mechanisms of the conclusion of evidence, therefore, is central to the theory of knowledge.

In the philosophy of science, the term usually refers to evidence those empirical findings, which confirm theories or to which confirmation attempts fail. We discuss different analyzes, what kind of relationship arises that a particular finding can be considered as "evidence for" the existence of certain facts or the truth of certain hypotheses - such as deductive, explanatory or probabilistic relations.

Epicureanism

Epicurus ( 341 BC -271 or 270 BC) - Greek philosopher and founder of Epicureanism - represents an empiricist position: All knowledge is based on perceptions by Epicurus. They are formed by emanation from the objects - and the perceptions are always true.

Scholasticism

John Duns Scotus (c. 1266-1308 ) - Scottish theologian and philosopher of scholasticism - describes the evidence as intuitive knowledge. Each term, the forming of an object, necessary has the property that it is also applicable to other items. Even the detailed description of a thing does not exclude the possibility that this description also another object could be detected. The special nature of an object, its individual unit can be seen only by our own direct observation and not through description of a third party. Intuitive knowledge is being settled primarily on the feeling or perception level, the immediate basis for recognizing the singularities ( the singularities ) that are in each individual quota (as random properties located ). The Singular is already taken before the mind in the abstracted knowledge can capture the universal in the article. The conceptual description is directed to the parts of the object, and thus secondary.

Intuitive knowledge is a process of direct perception, on the one hand contains the sensual presence of the perceived and on the other hand, reflects the "here and now " of an object in mind. In particular, the knowledge of the being of an object belongs to this kind of knowledge. The intuitive knowledge makes the existence of an object evident. Without intuitive knowledge of the man knew nothing about his inner life. Only intuitive knowledge enables reflection and self-knowledge.

According to Scotus some methods and processes of knowledge are not to prove their origin. To this end, he counts:

• The principles of logic, ie the sets of identity, contradiction and excluded from the third party;
• The objects of immediate, given in individual cases experience through the senses;
• The intentionality of one's actions, for example, the artistic act, or act of will.

Rationalism

For René Descartes (1596-1650) is the target of a justification of scientific knowledge at the center. It represents a rationalist position: thinking has to do with evidence, if the ideas clearly ( clare et distinct ) are. This can be seen when the idea " the attentive spirit is present and obvious. " The starting point of knowledge and thus of Sciences is the be all doubt withdrawing last evidence of the self- thinking subject ( cogito ergo sum ).

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) takes many ideas from Descartes on, clarifies them and integrates them into designs of a complex general theory. For him based evidence not in empiricism, but in thought, in a luminous certainty, which resulted from the combination of ideas.

Empiricism and skepticism

John Locke (1632-1704) operates an empiricist position further: in the sensuous intuition reasons all certainty ( certainty ) and evidence of our knowledge. For the skeptic David Hume (1711-1776) evidence is merely a subjective certainty, which is not suitable for reasons of Sciences.

Education

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) as a philosopher of the Enlightenment has determined apodictic evidence as an intuitive certainty. This is given only in mathematics, because their proofs were performed using intuitive insightful axioms.

Mediating theology

Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) emphasized as an intermediary theologian in his dialectic that knowledge goes hand in hand with a sense of conviction, the evidence can be called feeling.

Aktpsychologie

For Franz Brentano (1838-1917), founder of the Aktpsychologie, the concept of evidence was fundamental to his conception of truth: the theory of truth as correspondence of a judgment with an object ( correspondence theory ) he regarded as objectively wrong because it necessarily in a must lead circle. As evident he described such judgments that expressed a perfectly simple quality experience. Such experiences can not be reduced to simpler rules. The concept of evidence is, therefore, not be defined but only experienced. On the truth of the sum of 1 1 = 2 there is no doubt.

Evident judgments arise by intuition and are limited to the inner perception and simple relationships between terms. Equating true with evident in epistemology transferred Brentano on ethics, where evident then that means good. Again, the term can not be precisely determined, but only by specific emotional acts of consent (Love), or refusal (hate ) learn.

Phenomenology

Edmund Husserl (1859-1938) developed as Brentano's pupils from the Aktpsychologie finally phenomenology. For Husserl evidence is the objective correlate of subjective assent to ( "intention " ) of facts; Evidence exists in each case, " wherever a translated intention ( especially one claiming ) their confirmation by a corresponding, fully adapted to perception, it is also a suitable synthesis of related individual perceptions of place. " Evident may also be that an alleged facts are not given.

The subjective assent to include the possibility of error. Therefore, evidence may be more or less completely. In the pre-scientific field evidence and truth are always relative, and this is sufficient for everyday life. " But science seeks truths that once and for all and for everyone are a valid and remain valid, and thus novel and carried out down to the last probation. " The scientific process is an ever corrective action due to new knowledge, but as a goal the ideal of perfect evidence always has in mind. The perfect evidence is the starting point of all explanations in science and philosophy. This may be a process whose horizon is located at infinity. Therefore, with outstanding issues no finality of the evidence may be claimed. Even the existence of the world is no apodictic to claiming evidence, because even the "being in the world due to the natural evidence of experience must not be self -evident fact for us, but even just a scope phenomenon ."

Analytic Philosophy

George Edward Moore (1873-1958) founded together with Wittgenstein the analytical philosophy. Moore would be a representative of the common-sense philosophy. In his argument he was directed against the philosophical skepticism, ie, the thesis that there is (at least on matters of external reality ) was absolutely no certain knowledge. Even after Moore Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) expressed himself to the problem of presentation of evidence:

Criticism

Wilfrid Sellars (1912-1989), an adherent of naturalism developed in his essay Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind, a criticism of conditions of phenomenology and the analysis of the knowledge concept that is associated with sensory data. Provided going with this is that we have of our sensory perception is a knowledge that is independent of our conceptual apparatus, how we apply it in the performance of certain objects. This criticism was directed, inter alia, to against Clarence Irving Lewis developed by following Kant epistemology and against positivism of Rudolf Carnap.

Stegmüller (1923-1991) referred to evidence as "an insight without method Agencies " and one of the main pillars of our reasoning: "All our reasoning, deriving, Refute, Check is a continuous appeal to evidence, which ... that appeal to ... ' is not to be misunderstood as if the evidence in each case are the subject of justification. It is the 'how' and not the, What ' of judgment. "

So we called us in science and everyday life constantly on " self-evident " phrases " apparent" and " obvious " insights, without ever being able to prove the actual character of these insights, because: " ... the evidence is absolutely unsolvable problem ... arguments for all the evidence put a vicious circle ( vicious circle ) is and all the arguments against them a self-contradiction ... Those who argue for the evidence, commits a circle, because he wants to prove that there is the evidence; the proof to the end should therefore represent the result of the considerations while he already has to assume from the first moment of his argument on evidence. Those who argue against it, commits a self-contradiction; for he must also assume that his arguments are evident. "