Evidence to the contrary

Do you HAVE evidence to the contrary that you're just arbitrarily withholding? If you're arbitrarily withholding evidence that she's not being followed. What would you do if you had evidence she WAS being followed? I mean, you ran a rape-farm so I doubt it would be beyond you to lie. Would you 'Do what you thought was best?' If she was right? What excuse do you have not to tell her?

Dr. Rape Farm "Well, you know, I think it's best to, um, deflect to the peripheral elements of her life because THAT'S what I was trained to do. And if I'm wrong 1. I look stupid as fuck. 2. I would lose all of the money I make treating the misdiagnosis. Bet the psychological enterprise is TOO IMPORTANT for you acknowledge evidence to the contrary."

by Hym Iam March 17, 2024

Evidence

The video footage and WHERE THIS IS GOING.

Hym "You're using 'racism' as an excuse to withhold the evidence that YOU HAVE.:

by Hym Iam March 23, 2024

Evid

Probably one of the best teams around.
Evidentiary is a Mobile game organization. Which was made in 18 June 2021. We got our brands expanded to Standoff 2 & Critical Ops and soon will expand to various games in the future. We have only one motive to be top clan.

Evidentiary is a Mobile game organization. Which was made in 18 June 2021. We got our brands expanded to Standoff 2 & Critical Ops and soon will expand to various games in the future. We have only one motive to be top clan.

by Exvis99 June 26, 2021

Hard Problem of Evidence

The interpretive gap: Evidence is never self-interpreting; it is always filtered through a prior framework of beliefs, theories, and assumptions (a "paradigm"). A single piece of data can be used to support wildly different conclusions. The hard problem is that there is no such thing as "raw" or "theory-neutral" evidence. What counts as evidence, and how much weight it carries, is determined by the very worldview it is meant to test. This creates a hermeneutic circle where beliefs shape the evidence, which then selectively confirms beliefs.

Example: Two people see the same rainbow. A physicist sees evidence of refraction and wavelengths. A theologian sees evidence of a divine covenant. A pot of gold enthusiast sees evidence of leprechauns. The photons hitting their retinas are identical. The hard problem: The "evidence" of the rainbow is not in the light, but in the interpretation. In a courtroom, a fingerprint is strong evidence only if you already believe in the reliability of forensic science and the integrity of the chain of custody. Evidence is a conversation, not a commandment. Hard Problem of Evidence.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026

Hard Problem of Scientific Evidence

The problem of underdetermination: For any given body of scientific evidence, there are always multiple, logically possible theories that can explain it equally well. Data alone cannot force us to choose one theory over another; extra-scientific criteria like simplicity, elegance, or compatibility with other established theories (paradigm loyalty) must be used. The hard problem is that these criteria are aesthetic and pragmatic, not purely empirical. Thus, the move from evidence to theory is never a strict logical deduction, but a creative, sometimes subjective, leap.

Example: Centuries of astronomical evidence (planetary motions) could be explained perfectly by either Ptolemy's complex earth-centered model (with epicycles) or Copernicus's simpler sun-centered model. The evidence alone didn't decide. The choice was made based on the principle of parsimony (simplicity), which is a philosophical preference, not a law of nature. Today, the weird results of quantum experiments are explained by both the Copenhagen interpretation and the Many-Worlds interpretation. The evidence fits both; our choice is a matter of metaphysical taste, not evidential compulsion. Hard Problem of Scientific Evidence.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026