THE BOOK
Some of the ideas discussed in this blog are published in my new book called "The Stonehenge Bluestones" -- available by post and through good bookshops everywhere. Bad bookshops might not have it....
To order, click
HERE

Saturday 22 January 2022

"There is no evidence.........."



Over and again, these days, we see this phrase:  "There is no evidence that ....."  or  "There is no evidence of....."

One should be very careful about using that phrase -- though I must admit to using it myself all too easily.  For example, "There is no evidence that there was ever a giant circle at Waun Mawn"  or "There is no evidence of stone sockets in the area examined." 

A well-known QC mentioned the other day that in law, once something is claimed as evidence, it is evidence, whether one likes it or not.  It is then down to those who dislike it to counter with contrary evidence, or to scrutinise it very carefully under cross-examination in order to show that the "evidence" does not in fact show without a shadow of doubt that something is the case.

So evidence is defined in law as "data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects."  Or as follows: "any information that is presented with the aim of helping the court decide whether or not a crime has been committed."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence-legal/

On the other hand in science, evidence is defined thus:  "......that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof; something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign."

So when one says "There is no evidence" one actually means "There is nothing that I consider strong enough to be proof!"  

To avoid confusion, we should probably say "There is no evidence that withstands scrutiny" or "There is no convincing or strong evidence to support the claim being made...."

Anyway,  I still think there is nothing at Waun Mawn worthy of being called evidence, in support of the fantastical lost circle hypothesis!




No comments: