US Federal Rules of Evidence and How to use them to improve serious discussion - not Law.
This in the middle of the Grand Canyon is evidence
Evidence is a key component to understanding our world.
The US Federal Rules of Evidence have been worked on and developed through 100's of years of deep thinkers and legislatures hard work. The US Federal Rules of Evidence will be call the FRE here.The people who contributed to the resulting Federal Rules of Evidence go back a millennium and were are people very passionate about the subject matter.
The FRE is what guides and restricts the flow and divulging of evidence in a Federal Court matter. Judges and Lawyers must know them well. Ultimately many of the rules get taught to Juries in the form of Jury instructions.
The concept is "what can be used to prove something?" In our simple day to day affairs usually it is quite simple.. Here is my receipt and here is the defective product now give me my money back! Or "honey you forgot to take out the garbage ---How do I know? Because the garbage is sitting right here and not out where it belongs" But wuite often one piece of evidence is not all that clear. So we need much evidence to conclude."Officer I entered that intersection on a yellow light" "no it was red" So we look for witnesses, maybe a control camera or maybe question the officer's ability to judge because of location.
I hope I brought it down home. But I also want to get a little complex. And I want to bring it into nature. I am a tracker of animals and humans. I rely heavily on evidence one piece leads to another and then another and soon I can tell the approximate weight of a horse, the size and if ii has rider just by the prints it leaves behind.
I also want to bring it into areas like God and evolution and the formation of what we now see as our earth.
This will hopefully be a series as comments will lead to another area as clearly I cannot cover all this in one hub.
Here is just a song what does it prove?
Lets talk about that building in the Grand Canyon
I call it a building not a home because I got no proof from the photo what kind of building it was. But then I begin the Evidence hunt. I look where I am it is miles from anywhere. Logic tells me someone did not come here to work everyday from someplace else. Inspect the building, That stack we can see is part chimney. So it was used even in the winter. Look closer it had windows built for cross ventilation, so it was used in summer. inside we find cedar poles 8 of them two long and six short in a rectangle pattern on the floor. Just right for a cot. The short pieces are to small for a counter or table.
We have not quite enough evidence to absolutely prove this was used as a home. But boy I would sure think more likely than not. Is there reasonable doubt? Yes. So we keep going and going. The fireplace does not prove the entire premise, nor the poles, nor the windows, nor the location. But each piece helps to form a full evidence package I can rely on to build more evidence.
Some historical accounts (testimony) gives evidence this was an outpost home for a fellow by the name of Hance that had a mine about 1/2 a mile away.
Lets talk about the song, what is it evidence of?
That a song was song. That a song was written and composed. Does it prove the the existence of God? No. Is it evidence of the existence of God.Start working that one through your head. It is evidence that the notion is out there. It is clearly weak evidence that the composer singer believes in God.Is it popular? yes. Does that lend credence that others think/believe similarly, yes. So we have some evidence that suggests there is reason for further inquiry as to the reality of what this guy is singing about.
So far has this helped begin a better understanding of Evidence?
Evidence of the existence of a man named Buddha?
Proof is proof it is not necessarily proof of an ultimate fact.
Proof - That is simply the term used for a piece of admissible evidence.
Relevance - That simple means something that has a tendency to prove or disproof a material fact.
Evidence - Simply something. It need not even be empirical. Someone who say they were sad is evidence.
Testimony - Something some one relates or related
So we do not first judge the reliability of evidence. We do not first judge the truthfulness of the evidence. We do not first judge the relevance of the evidence. And we do not first judge whether or not the evidence is admissible or should be considered. We first gather the evidence.
Notice in my example of the building the hidden evidence that should have been obvious is that I went into the building site hoping to establish that the building was a dwelling,My inquiry had immediate bias and my gathering of evidence left out the possibility of it being something else eventually all my evidence should be skeptically evaluated knowing that. But that does not change in any way that it is in fact evidence and proof.
I think that might be enough for one hub.