An evidentialist is an individual who believes that the acceptance of any belief is justified only when there is sufficient evidence to support it. This perspective emphasizes the crucial role of evidence in shaping our beliefs and rejecting those that lack such support. Evidentialism stems from a commitment to rationality and objectivity, arguing against the acceptance of beliefs based on faith, intuition, or subjective experiences alone. They prioritize evidence-based reasoning in all domains, from scientific inquiry to personal decision-making. Evidentialists strive for truth, believing that the strength of evidence directly correlates with the likelihood of a belief being true.
Evidentialist meaning with examples
- As an evidentialist, Sarah meticulously researched all available data before investing in the stock market. She scrutinized financial reports, analyzed market trends, and consulted with experts to gather sufficient evidence to support her decisions. Sarah wouldn't take a chance on her investment because she needed a strong foundation of provable information before acting, highlighting her evidentialist approach.
- The scientific community generally operates on evidentialist principles; researchers design experiments, collect data, and analyze their results. These principles help to either support or refute hypotheses, thereby establishing or dismissing theories. Their work is subjected to peer review to guarantee the evidential standards, ensuring that knowledge is based on rigorous evidence and systematic evaluation.
- When confronted with claims of the paranormal, the evidentialist adopted a skeptical stance. They demanded verifiable evidence, like peer reviewed experiments and testable results, before accepting the claims. Lacking such proof, the evidentialist remained unconvinced. This showcases the importance of concrete data and repeatable results within their worldview.
- During jury selection, the evidentialist juror stressed the importance of only considering evidence presented in court. They explained that personal feelings, pre-existing biases, and subjective interpretations held no weight. Their evaluation of guilt or innocence should strictly be based on the facts and testimonies introduced during the trial, demonstrating the evidentialist commitment to objective reasoning.