How to Think Rationally

What is Evidence?

     Evidence is something that can be presented to support a claim. 

In order to sufficiently support a claim, it cannot be possible that the evidence is also true if the claim is not true. 

Metropolis is the home of Superman's secret persona, Clark Kent. If I am trying to prove that Metropolis is real, and that comics are an accurate representation of a real place, I would have to provide evidence, as I have made a claim and adopted a burden of proof. 

Necessary evidence versus Sufficient evidence makes all the difference in burden of proof.

I would not be able to present a city with buildings that was just discovered, and point out that the city has buildings, and therefore it is Metropolis. 

Sure, the buildings can be considered evidence. But they are not sufficient as evidence, because if I am correct then the building exists, and if I am wrong the buildings still can exist. 

What if I claimed that Spider-Man was real? Spider-Man lives in New York City, and we know New York City exists. There are buildings in the comics that match perfectly with the real layout of New York. But if in the distant future someone uncovered New York City from a pile of apocalyptic rubble and said that Spider-Man comics were true because they found New York City, their case would not be correct, as finding New York City is not sufficient evidence of Spider-Man existing. It is necessary evidence. 

This is a distinction lawyers learn to recognize as fundamental to their work.

So,

Necessary Evidence: Evidence that is mandatory for the claim to be true, but does not attest to the truth of the claim itself.

Sufficient Evidence: Evidence that meets to satisfy an unprejudiced mind.

Conclusive Evidence: Evidence that serves to establish a fact or truth. 

Human Brains are wired to jump to conclusions. The brain always has too much to process and when it can take a shortcut, it will. 

If you see steam coming from a pot which rests on a burner, and someone puts their hand in and pulls it rapidly out, what do you think is going on?

Saying "Heat" or "cooking" is a reasonable conclusion, but it is not necessarily a safe conclusion. After all, it is very possible that the person is a scientist, and he is working on dry ice or a cold concoction that creates steam or smoke. These are the kinds of assumptions we are used to making. But though useful for survival, if we rely too heavily on assumptions we will find it easier to come to false conclusions.

Too much confidence in these conclusions can be erroneous. 

The purpose of bringing this up is because in most cases, evidence for gods or conspiracies tend to be necessary evidence but not sufficient. Things like, "well look at how complex the world is," can be true if we do not know what the other options are, or if there are other options at all. Therefore it is possible that it could be true whether or not God exists. 

It must be stressed that there is a pattern to illogical thinking, too.

1. A logical person will create a theory to support observable evidence.

2. An illogical person will assert things as fact in order to support a theory. 

The second is the basis of conspiracy theories, and why it can be so difficult to convince someone they are wrong.

One way to tell what you are doing is to ask yourself, "Am I supporting what I claim" or "Am I attacking the opposing position to my claim?"

Trying to discredit your opponent's view is unreliable because even if that person is wrong, it does not necessarily establish that you are correct. It is very possible that both of you are wrong. And just because there are problems in understanding someone's theory doesn't mean they are wrong.

There is also the issue of whether your evidence requires a explanation. It is very possible to mistake a cause for an effect where there may be no meaning.

A famous analogy from Douglas Adams' "The Salmon of Doubt" is a puddle of water finding itself in a hole and thinking, "This hole fits me perfectly, it must be meant for me to be in." The moment the hole dries up catches it by surprise. 

Just because things seem to benefit us, doesn't mean they are made for that purpose. 

Such evidence is the primary source for superstitious beliefs because it is generally accepted at face value that nobody understands or can define what they want to prove. It is a difficult position to start from that must rely on fallacy.