This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Science Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Epistemology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Epistemology Skepticism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

French, German and Polish (perhaps also some others) articles concern philosophical meaning of the therm "evidence" - mainly cartesian, cantian, rickertian, husserlian. The English article (which seems to be realy bad :)) doesn't relate to the philsophical meaning. So I (as an author of the Polish article - pl:Oczywistość) I'm worried whether newly added interwikis to pl, de and fr are actually appropiate. I think that if they don't, we should use here an unusual way of making interwiki. 83.24.105.156 (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the english article is a bit dubious, and does not cover the philosphical meaning of evidence. Looking at the French and German articles though, they are very light on, expecially the French one. I have requested a translation of your Polish article Wikipedia:Translation/Evidence. I will have a go at redoing the English article. Pee Tern (talk) 05:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

You might also want to have a look at Scientific evidence, which seems to more philosphical than scientific, and perhaps I might have some significant restructuring and merging to do!? Pee Tern (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

"This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2007)"

This is an ironic warning statement to find attached to an article on "Evidence".68.197.49.1 (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

The article begins with a link to the article on Assertion, which links to the particular article on "logical assertion". I believe the evidence article can be improved by linking, instead, to the article on truth claims, or perhaps some other assertion article, chosen carefully from the assertion disambiguation page. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hear hear - or here here. MaynardClark (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't causality get a mention on the Evidence page? Doesn't legal evidence seek to identify that the accused caused the result (e.g. someone can't be found guilty of murder unless it can be shown that they caused the death). And doesn't the scientific method use evidence to show a cause and effect association? --Rwilkin (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Under the "Intellectual evidence" section, one can read " either of the two understood evidence in purely logical or formal terms, like many schools of thought tend to understand today. His theory of knowledge proves to be much richer.". I thought that maybe it would be good to substantiate this claim with some references perhaps, as it appears to need an argument. Which are the contemporary 'schools of thought' to which are we comparing Aquinas and Aristotle here? Without a concrete reference, it appears a bit unsubstantiated. Also, about the formal or logical approaches. Again, I would like to see references. There is a lot of discussion in contemporary philosophy on evidence, and not all of it is about logic of confirmation or theory of probabilities. There are important, substantial epistemological questions that have been asked about evidence and possession of evidence. For instance see Conee, Earl & Feldman, Richard (2004). Evidentialism: Essays in Epistemology. Oxford University Press; Williamson, Timothy (2000). Knowledge and its Limits. Oxford University Press; Kelly, Thomas (2008). Evidence: Fundamental concepts and the phenomenal conception. Philosophy Compass 3 (5):933-955. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epistemologins (talk • contribs) 19:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Editors of this article may be interested in this AfD, where there is a proposal to merge the article Clue (information) here. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)Reply