Evidence Pluralism

The principle that what counts as legitimate "evidence" depends on the context and the question being asked. It rejects the idea that only quantitative, statistical data from controlled experiments constitutes valid proof. Under this view, a patient's detailed narrative, a historical document, an ethnographic observation, or a logical model can all serve as robust evidence within their respective domains of inquiry.

Example: In a court of law, Evidence Pluralism is the rule. The case is built on forensic data (DNA), documentary evidence (a contract), testimonial evidence (an eyewitness account), and expert interpretation (a psychologist's analysis). Dismissing the witness's story because it's not a DNA strand would be absurd. Different questions (Who was there? What happened?) require different forms of proof.

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 6, 2026

Hard Problem of Evidence

The dilemma that all evidence is interpreted through pre-existing frameworks (theories, biases, cultural narratives). There is no such thing as a "brute fact." A piece of data only becomes evidence for or against something within a specific story about how the world works. Changing someone's mind therefore requires not just new facts, but a change in their entire interpretive framework—a much harder task.

Example: Presenting vaccine efficacy data to an anti-vaxxer. The numbers are dismissed as fabricated by Big Pharma. The Hard Problem of Evidence is that the evidence is not seen as neutral. It is processed through a framework where institutional authority is inherently distrusted. New evidence strengthens the framework ("See, they're pushing harder!"), rather than challenging it. The battle is over frameworks, not facts.

by Dumuabzu February 8, 2026

Law of Absolute and Relative Evidence

The principle that evidence operates in two modes: absolute evidence (facts that are evidence regardless of perspective, context, or interpretation) and relative evidence (facts that serve as evidence only within particular frameworks, for particular purposes, to particular audiences). The law acknowledges that some evidence is universally compelling—a video of a crime, a DNA match, a document with a signature. Other evidence is context-dependent—statistics that prove one point to one audience and the opposite to another, testimony that's credible in one culture and suspect in another. The law of absolute and relative evidence reconciles the intuition that evidence should be objective with the reality that its force depends on who's judging. Good arguments use both kinds, building on undeniable facts while understanding that interpretation is always relative.

Example: "They argued about whether the data was evidence of climate change. Absolute evidence: the temperature readings were real, measurable, undeniable. Relative evidence: whether those readings proved catastrophic warming depended on models, interpretations, and assumptions. The law of absolute and relative evidence said: the data was absolute; its meaning was relative. They stopped arguing about the data and started arguing about interpretation."

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 16, 2026

Law of Spectral Evidence

The principle that evidence exists on a spectrum between absolute and relative, with infinite gradations and multiple dimensions. Under this law, a piece of evidence isn't simply strong or weak, conclusive or suggestive—it has spectral properties: strength in some dimensions (directness, reliability), weakness in others (relevance, context-dependence), and different effects on different audiences. The law of spectral evidence recognizes that evidence evaluation is not binary but continuous, that what counts as evidence varies across domains (law, science, everyday life), and that the question isn't "is this evidence?" but "where on the spectrum of evidential force does this fall?" This law is essential for understanding debates where both sides claim evidence—they're often using different spectral coordinates, not disagreeing about the same evidence.

Law of Spectral Evidence Example: "She evaluated the evidence using spectral analysis, mapping it across dimensions: directness (high for eyewitness testimony, low for circumstantial), reliability (medium—witness had poor eyesight), relevance (high to the case, low to motive), persuasiveness (depends on jury). The spectral coordinates explained why the evidence might convince some jurors and not others. The law didn't predict the verdict, but it showed why prediction was hard."

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 16, 2026

Evidence-Saturation Delay

The cognitive phenomenon where the presentation of overwhelming evidence actually slows down decision-making and judgment rather than accelerating it. When faced with too much evidence, the mind freezes—unable to process, prioritize, or conclude. This delay is paradoxical: more information should lead to faster, better decisions, but beyond a certain point, it leads to paralysis. Evidence-saturation delay is why juries can deadlock after weeks of testimony, why consumers can't choose among 50 similar products, and why debates about complex issues never end despite mountains of data. The cure is not more evidence but better filtering, which is why experts are valuable: they know what to ignore. The rest of us just drown.

Example: "She spent three weeks researching which laptop to buy, reading reviews, comparing specs, watching videos. Evidence-saturation delay had struck: the more she learned, the less she could decide. She finally bought the one her friend recommended, which she could have done in five minutes. The evidence hadn't helped; it had paralyzed."

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 17, 2026

Evidence Objectivity Bias

A variation of objectivity bias where something only counts as evidence if the person making the judgment says it's evidence. "That's not evidence because I say so." The bias replaces objective standards of evidence with personal fiat, making the individual the sole arbiter of what counts as proof. Evidence Objectivity Bias is what allows conspiracy theorists to dismiss mountains of data while accepting a single tweet as proof. It's what allows bad-faith arguers to demand evidence, then reject it, then demand different evidence, then reject that—because the real standard is not evidence but agreement. If you agree with me, your evidence counts; if you don't, it doesn't. The bias is the "because I said so" of epistemology, the final refuge of those who have no arguments left.

Example: "She provided study after study showing vaccine safety. He dismissed each one with Evidence Objectivity Bias: 'That's not real evidence.' When she asked what would count, he said 'I'll know it when I see it.' He never saw it. The bias had made him the sole judge of what counts as proof—and his judgment was that nothing that disagreed with him could ever count. Evidence wasn't the issue; control was."

by Dumu The Void February 20, 2026