What constitutes "good" evidence from "bad"?

Hi,

When posting sources etc.. what constitutes "good" evidence from "bad", and how do you differentiate between the two?

It's not so much differentiating between good or bad, but in having multiple independent sources, imo.

There are some far right wing, or far left wing sites of course, those should be watched for, as they are heavily biased.

Usually you can tell whether a source is heavily biased by doing a bit of research on the source in question.

See what other material the site covers. Is it consistent in which way it "leans", or is there plenty of differing points of view offered in the same site.

Also, is there a lot of negative reviews of the source from different sites?

Usually I find that heavily biased sites basically stick out like a sore thumb. You get a "feel" for it after a while.

No single source is very useful by itself (as it may be biased one way, or the other, albeit very subtly). It usually helps as I said earlier, to have multiple sources for reference.

That is my 1 and a half cents worth, and my opinion on this.

[edit on 2/21/2007 by Mechanic 32]

[edit on 2/21/2007 by Mechanic 32]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Hi,

When posting sources etc.. what constitutes "good" evidence from "bad", and how do you differentiate between the two?

well, in science, good evidence tends to consist of tests whose results can be consistently duplicated with a tiny variation in the results

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
in science, good evidence tends to consist of tests whose results can be consistently duplicated with a tiny variation in the results.

Yes, this is called 'replicability', an important consequence of the principle of falsifiability that underlies the experimental method.

Sadly, not everything in the world can be thus proven scientifically.

One-of-a-kind events, such as the supposed Miracle of Fatima or the vast majority of UFO sightings, belong in that category. So do a wide variety of other events and pheonomena, due to their irregularity, site-specificity, inaccessibility, etc. -- in a word, to their lack of replicability.

For such events, the best evidence we can hope for are unambiguous physical traces indicating that the event occurred, reliable eyewitness accounts that corroborate each other and were recorded before the eyewitnesses had an opportunity to compare notes, and so on. Such evidence is rarely compelling, leaving us in doubt about our opinions and conclusions.

That's the point at which the cranks, obsessives and paranoiacs move in...

OK!! Thanks!!