Who decides what is considered to be evidence?

It’s a serious questions, because one of the common forms of demagogic trickery consists of confusing this issue, and so the opposing side implicitly assumes it has the right to arbitrarily accept or refuse the offered evidence. So basically I say that trees are living organisms, and the guy I’m talking to says “I dispute that”, and then what, I have to prove that trees are living organisms, or do I simply get to say “you are an idiot”? I actually prefer the latter option, because it is almost impossible to prove anything within the context of a discussion. You can only refer to research and evidence that has already been produced in a more formal setup, experimentally, and if someone refuses to accept that, you have a serious problem if you want to proceed with any kind of a discussion, because if you allow the opponent to control acceptance of evidence, he in fact gets to control who wins, because victory is defined by having the prevailing evidence on your side, and if someone decides what is accepted as evidence, he can rig the game.

For instance, I’ve seen extensive IQ studies based on statistical evidence proving racial differences, and it is all dismissed out of hand with the statement that “this has been refuted”. No, it wasn’t refuted, it was confirmed again and again and again, and it is being summarily dismissed by the leftists because it doesn’t agree with their beliefs and so “it must be wrong”, because racism or because Nazism. So if I allow my opponent to simply dismiss enormous body of work that is offered as evidence, and then proceed to say that my claims are unsubstantiated because there is no evidence for them, can the discussion really be continued? There really isn’t anything to talk about because it’s like dismissing spaceflight as evidence because someone says that nothing NASA publishes can be trusted. If you can’t rely on scientific research as evidence, what can you rely on, in a debate? You can’t really demonstrate any significant physics in a debate, except that water is wet and glass is breakable by smashing a glass of water on the floor. This very much limits the possibility of a debate between very different philosophies and worldviews, because admission of evidence is the point where the debate is decided in advance. Another problem is when your opponent cites a bullshit study you’ve never heard of, which for instance “proves” that there’s no gravity and that the impression of gravity on Earth is created because it keeps accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.81 m/s². First he dismisses NASA as evidence, and then he offers this bullshit study as the truth, and when you dismiss it, the result is a false impression of equal fanaticism and stubbornness on both sides. The real truth is, you’re talking to an idiot, and if that truth isn’t openly acknowledged, you’re fucked by merely participating in a debate.

And now we come to the more important issue. In your personal life, who decides what is evidence, and what is acceptable? Is it you, or is it dictated to you? Are you free to make a personal judgment about acceptability of evidence?

How do you decide that your wife loves you? Do you say it can’t be determined because there’s no scientific backing for the claim? Do you dismiss your emotions as evidence because someone says they are not reliable? Or do you trust your own judgment and make up your own mind? How do you approach the question of God’s existence if you feel that God is present in your life and you feel that there is compelling evidence for accepting that He exists? If you cannot communicate this evidence to others, does it stop being evidence to you, personally? Is it a requirement that others must accept it, or it isn’t evidence? I don’t think so. It’s a complex thing, and what is evidence for a person, doesn’t necessarily need to be admissible to a court, or to science, but it doesn’t necessarily cease to be valid. For instance, there isn’t a reliable way for someone outside my room to tell whether I’m writing this text on my desktop computer or a laptop. When I connect to the CMS, it only sees the IP address of my router, with no identification of the internal IP address on the LAN which could indicate which machine was used to make the connection. The text would be the same in both cases. Anyone inspecting the CMS database wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. You won’t be able to tell the difference. But I know which machine I used, I know I’m typing it into the desktop machine. I cannot reliably prove it to you, but I know it’s the truth – only I know the truth. The courts cannot know it, science cannot know it, but I know it. Is it less true because it isn’t scientific or communicable? If I write on this keyboard do I write less reliably because you cannot reliably know that I do? If I drink coffee from a cup, did I drink it less because there are no witnesses and you cannot know that I did? If I experienced God, directly and without any doubt on my side, is it less true because you cannot confirm it? But if that is the cornerstone of my personal understanding of reality, and it is not admissible as evidence in a debate, if others will not accept it and I cannot deny it, if my personal experience is incommunicably wider than others’, of what use is a debate? I can write my narrative, and it can be compelling or not to others. I can actually use spiritual powers to create spiritual experiences in others, but what it does is just create one more person that believes me, and one more person you will call crazy or deluded. So what it all comes down to is faith. You choose to believe certain things, and you accept evidence that supports your belief, and dismiss evidence that refutes your belief. Until you change your internal reasoning for acceptability of evidence, there’s nothing anyone can do to convince you. Long ago, I decided that it doesn’t matter. I will do my thing based on what I believe, and you will do your thing based on what you believe, and each choice will have consequences.