Define "Evidence"

I know that Winnie the Pooh was written, but what about evidence of the Winnepeg Pooh??

I'm sure I've already said this in a different way, but "evidence" is basically a proposition that, if accepted, makes any given claim more or less likely to be true. It's important for reasoning. And, when it comes to reason, maybe Hume said it best:

Thank you for getting back on topic. . .
Sorta.

If you ever get to Seattle we should poppa pizza or somethin'

You too, Layman.

Some people don't seem to know the difference between evidence and proof.

I read about a murder in a NYC newspaper a few years back, and I instantly knew that idiot brother-in-law of mine did it.

So I took a train there and talked to the cops. I told them: "I know he did it, and I can prove it."

They asked: "What's your proof?"

I said: "Looky here! Here's a cancelled out train ticket stub with his name on it. He was in New York that day!"

They said: "That might be evidence, Layman, but it aint proof."

The chumps.

True, dat.
The same evidence is often ambidexterously applied by both sides of the debate.

Lends insight to the demand "show me some evidence".

SO, were you tried and acquitted? You should have at least been tried and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for murdering our mother -tongue

Im surprised at you, youre usually able to catch slow pitches.

Them pigs is the ones what should oughta have been put on trial, Farmer, caincha see?

For stupidity.

****, them fools can't even see the difference between evidence and proof.

I did say 'sorta'.
Anything to get away from the previous digression.

Show me some evidence for the underlined part.

I don't care who presents evidence about what--long as I'm the judge.

Absent that, then gimme a little time with the judge's wife, know what I'm sayin?

Francis Bacon was accused of bein a corrupt and unfair judge because he took bribes. But they couldn't make it stick.

His defense: I never presided over a case where I was biased. I always took money from both sides.

Talkin about evidence, and all....

I was down to the lake fishin last summer, when, all of a sudden, I seen that candyass park ranger, Herman, comin my way in his shiny-ass car, on the lookout for "poachers."

Right quick I hid my pole, bait, and net under my blanket, and hid my bucket fulla fish behind a tree. Right soon, sho nuff, here comes Herman walkin my way.

I said, Zup, Hermie? Nice day, eh?

He didn't say nuthin but went moseyin around. Then he spotted my fish. He said: You got a fishin license, Layman?

I said: Naw, I don't bother, I don't fish no more. Just out here catchin a few rays, and ****, ya know?

He said: Yeah? What's this, then?

I said: Them's my pet fish, Hermie. I bring out here now and again, for a "walk." I dump them in the lake, so they can see some of their old homies for spell. Then when we're ready to head out, I whistle, and they all come and swim into my net so I can haul them on back home again, see?

He said: You expect me to believe that crap, Layman. Imma confiscate these fish and write you up a ticket.

I said: It's a stone-cold fact, Hermie. You can't write me a ticket for pet fish.

He said; "Show me."

I said: Sho nuff. Then I dumped all those fish into the lake, and went back to catchin rays.

After a spell, Hermie said: Well?

I said: Well, what?

He said: Let's see you whistle and call those fish in.

I said: What fish?

In order to divert a prior digression, I thought it reasonable to start a thread on worship

Maybe you're just not curious enough. Or just not your time.

In any case, I didn't expect it to be popular. But your star is rising. First time I've seen your post get two thumbs up!

Not from me I assure you !
Frank has a problem with the word 'know'. He he doesn't 'know' that like most words, it take on different meanings in different contexts. He therefore interprets 'knowledge of God' only with respect to his own idiosyncratic context of his rationalization of his lapsed Catholic priesthood

Generally all 'evidence' is defined with respect to to the social context which focuses observation. Without a consensus, one person's 'evidence' can be another person's 'blather'. There is no such thing as 'neutral data'.

Thus spake Zarafresco!

Are you familiar with an autobiography by Gordon Parks called "A Choice of Weapons"?

Naw, I aint, PP. Truth be told, offhand I don't even know who Gordon Parks is. It it worth reading?