nature of evidence in the arts make it less valid?
Does the work of professionals in the field of art (critics, historians, curators, etc.) make their knoweldge claims more reliable?
Is scientific knowledge always based on
Ways of Knowing
Are one's emotions a valid form of evidence from which to make knowledge claims?
If I feel a work of art evokes a 'sense of melancholy' and I have nothing but my emotions as evidence, would this constitute 'good' evidence?
Does evidence of a scientific nature appeal to our reason and sense of common sense? Is this its appeal?
Nature of Evidence
Is the scientific method the only valid means by which to generate evidence?
Scientific evidence involves verifiability, repeatability, measurement, etc., which increases its
The visible, real-world applications of scientific evidence further strengthens its validity
What does evidence 'look' like in different areas of knowledge?
In history, for example, evidence can be any cultural artifact, including texts filled with bias making the evidence of questionable
Can unreliable evidence be a valid platform upon which to base one's interpretations of historical events?
Value of Evidence
Can we ever speak of 'pure' evidence not contaminated by bias?
Occasionally we seek evidence that simply confirms our existing biases and thus fall into the trap of
Can we know anything for certain in the absence of evidence?
Is it feasible to reconstruct events of the past simply through logic or a process of deductive reasoning?