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 Under this view, a patient's detailed narrative, a historical document, an ethnographic observation, or a logical model can all serve as robust evidence within their respective domains of inquiry.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