Talk:Circumstantial evidence

Regarding the below comment by David Meister, I have to agree with his thoughts on Physics being purely Circumstantial Evidence, if you can call it that. To my understanding, we can only use Inductive reasoning in Physics, as we did not design the world, and our knowledge is limited to what we have already learned, not what is completely out there. The question is what is the difference between Circumstantial Evidence and Inductive Reasoning. In my own opinion, I believe circumstantial simply an alternative legal specific synonym for Inductive Reasoning, as applied to evidence. So in that respect, I do not think the bottom entries have a home here.

I completely agree that the bottom things on Social Studies, Science and History is very unprofessional, and brings the entire credibility of the article into question. Such vague subject matter, and lack of detail sound like a gradeschool explaination. I don't know whether or not Science can be called Circumstantial Evidence or not (but I do suspect that it can't) In the same respect I can't strike the other entries from this page. I would appreciate someone looking into this, and deciding whether or not to kill the entries in question.

63.136.113.148 (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

In my understanding, circumstantial evidence is used in a court of law. Not in the classroom (Social studies, History, etc) Somebody take that stuff out. It makes the place look aweful.

"Science

Circumstantial evidence is normally used in science only to support other forms of evidence, so that you can figure out what happened."

My Thoughts on this:

According to the definition of "Circumstantial Evidence" presented by Wikipedia. All of Physics is demonstrated by circumstantial evidence. It is impossible for any one person to directly observe any of the constituent Laws that would have to make up any proposed "Theory of Everything." In fact, all experiments are essentially recipies to extract circumstantial evidence that can support only one conclusion or disprove an existing theory.

If you want to support this sentence as valid and informative you'll need to explain what other forms of evidence exist and how "scientists" use them. A discussion of how different fields interpret evidence would be way less ambiguous, as it stands this one-liner doesn't explain much. For example, Physicists and Chemists use experimental data to develop empirical and quantitative models whereas a Sedimentologist might use fossils and other relative dating methods to analyse a particular facies when absolute dating methods are impractical. Both are examples of Circumstantial Evidence but the philosophy behind their use and justification are distinct.

- David Meister

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Circumstantial evidence. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1997/jun/06-04-97/news/news3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)