The definition of the word evidence

Evidence for a proposition is what supports the proposition. It is usually understood as an indication that the supported proposition is true. What role evidence plays and how it is conceived varies from field to field.

In epistemology, evidence is what justifies beliefs or what makes it rational to hold a certain doxastic attitude. For example, a perceptual experience of a tree may act as evidence that justifies the belief that there is a tree. In this role, evidence is usually understood as a private mental state. Important topics in this field include the questions of what the nature of these mental states is, for example, whether they have to be propositional, and whether misleading mental states can still qualify as evidence. In phenomenology, evidence is understood in a similar sense. Here, however, it is limited to intuitive knowledge that provides immediate access to truth and is therefore indubitable. In this role, it is supposed to provide ultimate justifications for basic philosophical principles and thus turn philosophy into a rigorous science. However, it is highly controversial whether evidence can meet these requirements. Other fields, including the sciences and the law, tend to emphasize more the public nature of evidence (for example, scientists tend to focus on how the data used during statistical inference are generated).^[1] In philosophy of science, evidence is understood as that which confirms or disconfirms scientific hypotheses. Measurements of Mercury’s «anomalous» orbit, for example, are seen as evidence that confirms Einstein’s theory of general relativity. In order to play the role of neutral arbiter between competing theories, it is important that scientific evidence is public and uncontroversial, like observable physical objects or events, so that the proponents of the different theories can agree on what the evidence is. This is ensured by following the scientific method and tends to lead to an emerging scientific consensus through the gradual accumulation of evidence. Two issues for the scientific conception of evidence are the problem of underdetermination, i.e. that the available evidence may support competing theories equally well, and theory-ladenness, i.e. that what some scientists consider the evidence to be may already involve various theoretical assumptions not shared by other scientists. It is often held that there are two kinds of evidence: intellectual evidence or what is self-evident and empirical evidence or evidence accessible through the senses.

In order for something to act as evidence for a hypothesis, it has to stand in the right relation to it. In philosophy, this is referred to as the «evidential relation» and there are competing theories about what this relation has to be like. Probabilistic approaches hold that something counts as evidence if it increases the probability of the supported hypothesis. According to hypothetico-deductivism, evidence consists in observational consequences of the hypothesis. The positive-instance approach states that an observation sentence is evidence for a universal hypothesis if the sentence describes a positive instance of this hypothesis. The evidential relation can occur in various degrees of strength. These degrees range from direct proof of the truth of a hypothesis to weak evidence that is merely consistent with the hypothesis but does not rule out other, competing hypotheses, as in circumstantial evidence.

In law, rules of evidence govern the types of evidence that are admissible in a legal proceeding. Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence.^[2] The parts of a legal case that are not in controversy are known, in general, as the «facts of the case.» Beyond any facts that are undisputed, a judge or jury is usually tasked with being a trier of fact for the other issues of a case. Evidence and rules are used to decide questions of fact that are disputed, some of which may be determined by the legal burden of proof relevant to the case. Evidence in certain cases (e.g. capital crimes) must be more compelling than in other situations (e.g. minor civil disputes), which drastically affects the quality and quantity of evidence necessary to decide a case.

Nature of evidence[edit]

Understood in its broadest sense, evidence for a proposition is what supports this proposition. Traditionally, the term is sometimes understood in a narrower sense: as the intuitive knowledge of facts that are considered indubitable.^[3][4][5] In this sense, only the singular form is used. This meaning is found especially in phenomenology, in which evidence is elevated to one of the basic principles of philosophy, giving philosophy the ultimate justifications that are supposed to turn it into a rigorous science.^[6][4][7] In a more modern usage, the plural form is also used. In academic discourse, evidence plays a central role in epistemology and in the philosophy of science. Reference to evidence is made in many different fields, like in science, in the legal system, in history, in journalism and in everyday discourse.^[8][9][10] A variety of different attempts have been made to conceptualize the nature of evidence. These attempts often proceed by starting with intuitions from one field or in relation to one theoretical role played by evidence and go on to generalize these intuitions, leading to a universal definition of evidence.^[8][9][11]

One important intuition is that evidence is what justifies beliefs. This line of thought is usually followed in epistemology and tends to explain evidence in terms of private mental states, for example, as experiences, other beliefs or knowledge. This is closely related to the idea that how rational someone is, is determined by how they respond to evidence.^{[8][9][12][13][14]} Another intuition, which is more dominant in the philosophy of science, focuses on evidence as that which confirms scientific hypotheses and arbitrates between competing theories.^[15] On this view, it is essential that evidence is public so that different scientists can share the same evidence. This leaves publicly observable phenomena like physical objects and events as the best candidates for evidence, unlike private mental states.^[8][9][14] One problem with these approaches is that the resulting definitions of evidence, both within a field and between fields, vary a lot and are incompatible with each other. For example, it is not clear what a bloody knife and a perceptual experience have in common when both are treated as evidence in different disciplines. This suggests that there is no unitary concept corresponding to the different theoretical roles ascribed to evidence, i.e. that we do not always mean the same thing when we talk of evidence.^[8][9][11]

Important theorists of evidence include Bertrand Russell, Willard Van Orman Quine, the logical positivists, Timothy Williamson, Earl Conee and Richard Feldman.^[9] Russell, Quine and the logical positivists belong to the empiricist tradition and hold that evidence consists in sense data, stimulation of one’s sensory receptors and observation statements, respectively.^[16] According to Williamson, all and only knowledge constitute evidence.^[17] Conee and Feldman hold that only one’s current mental states should be considered evidence.^[11]

In epistemology[edit]

The guiding intuition within epistemology concerning the role of evidence is that it is what justifies beliefs.^[8][9] For example, Phoebe’s auditory experience of the music justifies her belief that the speakers are on. Evidence has to be possessed by the believer in order to play this role.^[11] So Phoebe’s own experiences can justify her own beliefs but not someone else’s beliefs. Some philosophers hold that evidence possession is restricted to conscious mental states, for example, to sense data.^[9] This view has the implausible consequence that many of simple everyday-beliefs would be unjustified. The more common view is that all kinds of mental states, including stored beliefs that are currently unconscious, can act as evidence.^[11][18] It is sometimes argued that the possession of a mental state capable of justifying another is not sufficient for the justification to happen. The idea behind this line of thought is that justified belief has to be connected to or grounded in the mental state acting as its evidence.^[11][19] So Phoebe’s belief that the speakers are on is not justified by her auditory experience if the belief is not based in this experience. This would be the case, for example, if Phoebe has both the experience and the belief but is unaware of the fact that the music is produced by the speakers.

It is sometimes held that only propositional mental states can play this role, a position known as «propositionalism».^[17][20] A mental state is propositional if it is an attitude directed at a propositional content. Such attitudes are usually expressed by verbs like «believe» together with a that-clause, as in «Robert believes that the corner shop sells milk».^[21][22] Such a view denies that sensory impressions can act as evidence. This is often held as an argument against this view since sensory impressions are commonly treated as evidence.^[8][16] Propositionalism is sometimes combined with the view that only attitudes to true propositions can count as evidence.^[17] On this view, the belief that the corner shop sells milk only constitutes evidence for the belief that the corner shop sells dairy products if the corner shop actually sells milk. Against this position, it has been argued that evidence can be misleading but still count as evidence.^[11][9]

This line of thought is often combined with the idea that evidence, propositional or otherwise, determines what it is rational for us to believe.^[9][8] But it can be rational to have a false belief.^[23][24] This is the case when we possess misleading evidence. For example, it was rational for Neo in the Matrix movie to believe that he was living in the 20th century because of all the evidence supporting his belief despite the fact that this evidence was misleading since it was part of a simulated reality. This account of evidence and rationality can also be extended to other doxastic attitudes, like disbelief and suspension of belief. So rationality does not just demand that we believe something if we have decisive evidence for it, it also demands that we disbelieve something if we have decisive evidence against it and that we suspend belief if we lack decisive evidence either way.^[9][8][11]

In phenomenology[edit]

The meaning of the term «evidence» in phenomenology shows many parallels to its epistemological usage, but it is understood in a narrower sense. Thus, evidence here specifically refers to intuitive knowledge, which is described as «self-given» (selbst-gegeben).^[25] This contrasts with empty intentions, in which one refers to states of affairs through a certain opinion, but without an intuitive presentation.^[26] This is why evidence is often associated with the controversial thesis that it constitutes an immediate access to truth.^[27] In this sense, the evidently given phenomenon guarantees its own truth and is therefore considered indubitable. Due to this special epistemological status of evidence, it is regarded in phenomenology as the basic principle of all philosophy.^[25][6] In this form, it represents the lowest foundation of knowledge, which consists of indubitable insights upon which all subsequent knowledge is built.^[28] This evidence-based method is meant to make it possible for philosophy to overcome many of the traditionally unresolved disagreements and thus become a rigorous science.^[29][30][6] This far-reaching claim of phenomenology, based on absolute certainty, is one of the focal points of criticism by its opponents. Thus, it has been argued that even knowledge based on self-evident intuition is fallible. This can be seen, for example, in the fact that even among phenomenologists, there is much disagreement about the basic structures of experience.^[31]

In philosophy of science[edit]

In the sciences, evidence is understood as what confirms or disconfirms scientific hypotheses.^[8][9] The term «confirmation» is sometimes used synonymously with that of «evidential support».^[15] Measurements of Mercury’s «anomalous» orbit, for example, are seen as evidence that confirms Einstein’s theory of general relativity. This is especially relevant for choosing between competing theories. So in the case above, evidence plays the role of neutral arbiter between Newton’s and Einstein’s theory of gravitation.^[9] This is only possible if scientific evidence is public and uncontroversial so that proponents of competing scientific theories agree on what evidence is available. These requirements suggest scientific evidence consists not of private mental states but of public physical objects or events.^[9][14]

It is often held that evidence is in some sense prior to the hypotheses it confirms. This was sometimes understood as temporal priority, i.e. that we come first to possess the evidence and later form the hypothesis through induction. But this temporal order is not always reflected in scientific practice, where experimental researchers may look for a specific piece of evidence in order to confirm or disconfirm a pre-existing hypothesis.^[9] Logical positivists, on the other hand, held that this priority is semantic in nature, i.e. that the meanings of the theoretical terms used in the hypothesis are determined by what would count as evidence for them. Counterexamples for this view come from the fact that our idea of what counts as evidence may change while the meanings of the corresponding theoretical terms remain constant.^[9] The most plausible view is that this priority is epistemic in nature, i.e. that our belief in a hypothesis is justified based on the evidence while the justification for the belief in the evidence does not depend on the hypothesis.^[9]

A central issue for the scientific conception of evidence is the problem of underdetermination, i.e. that the evidence available supports competing theories equally well.^[32][33] So, for example, evidence from our everyday life about how gravity works confirms Newton’s and Einstein’s theory of gravitation equally well and is therefore unable to establish consensus among scientists. But in such cases, it is often the gradual accumulation of evidence that eventually leads to an emerging consensus. This evidence-driven process towards consensus seems to be one hallmark of the sciences not shared by other fields.^[9][34]

Another problem for the conception of evidence in terms of confirmation of hypotheses is that what some scientists consider the evidence to be may already involve various theoretical assumptions not shared by other scientists. This phenomenon is known as theory-ladenness.^[9][35] Some cases of theory-ladenness are relatively uncontroversial, for example, that the numbers output by a measurement device need additional assumptions about how this device works and what was measured in order to count as meaningful evidence.^[36] Other putative cases are more controversial, for example, the idea that different people or cultures perceive the world through different, incommensurable conceptual schemes, leading them to very different impressions about what is the case and what evidence is available.^[37] Theory-ladenness threatens to impede the role of evidence as neutral arbiter since these additional assumptions may favor some theories over others. It could thereby also undermine a consensus to emerge since the different parties may be unable to agree even on what the evidence is.^[9][38] When understood in the widest sense, it is not controversial that some form of theory-ladenness exists. But it is questionable whether it constitutes a serious threat to scientific evidence when understood in this sense.^[9]

Nature of the evidential relation[edit]

Philosophers in the 20th century started to investigate the «evidential relation», the relation between evidence and the proposition supported by it.^[1] The issue of the nature of the evidential relation concerns the question of what this relation has to be like in order for one thing to justify a belief or to confirm a hypothesis.^[15] Important theories in this field include the probabilistic approach, hypothetico-deductivism and the positive-instance approach.^[8][39]

Probabilistic approaches, also referred to as Bayesian confirmation theory, explain the evidential relation in terms of probabilities. They hold that all that is necessary is that the existence of the evidence increases the likelihood that the hypothesis is true. This can be expressed mathematically as .^[40][41] In words: a piece of evidence (E) confirms a hypothesis (H) if the conditional probability of this hypothesis relative to the evidence is higher than the unconditional probability of the hypothesis by itself.^[42] Smoke (E), for example, is evidence that there is a fire (H), because the two usually occur together, which is why the likelihood of fire given that there is smoke is higher than the likelihood of fire by itself. On this view, evidence is akin to an indicator or a symptom of the truth of the hypothesis.^[11] Against this approach, it has been argued that it is too liberal because it allows accidental generalizations as evidence. Finding a nickel in one’s pocket, for example, raises the probability of the hypothesis that «All the coins in my pockets are nickels». But, according to Alvin Goldman, it should not be considered evidence for this hypothesis since there is no lawful connection between this one nickel and the other coins in the pocket.^[9]

Hypothetico-deductivism is a non-probabilistic approach that characterizes the evidential relations in terms of deductive consequences of the hypothesis. According to this view, «evidence for a hypothesis is a true observational consequence of that hypothesis».^{[8][15][43][44]} One problem with the characterization so far is that hypotheses usually contain relatively little information and therefore have few if any deductive observational consequences. So the hypothesis by itself that there is a fire does not entail that smoke is observed. Instead, various auxiliary assumptions have to be included about the location of the smoke, the fire, the observer, the lighting conditions, the laws of chemistry, etc. In this way, the evidential relation becomes a three-place relation between evidence, hypothesis and auxiliary assumptions.^[15][45] This means that whether a thing is evidence for a hypothesis depends on the auxiliary assumptions one holds. This approach fits well with various scientific practices. For example, it is often the case that experimental scientists try to find evidence that would confirm or disconfirm a proposed theory. The hypothetico-deductive approach can be used to predict what should be observed in an experiment if the theory was true.^[45] It thereby explains the evidential relation between the experiment and the theory.^[15] One problem with this approach is that it cannot distinguish between relevant and certain irrelevant cases. So if smoke is evidence for the hypothesis «there is fire», then it is also evidence for conjunctions including this hypothesis, for example, «there is fire and Socrates was wise», despite the fact that Socrates’s wisdom is irrelevant here.^[8]

According to the positive-instance approach, an observation sentence is evidence for a universal hypothesis if the sentence describes a positive instance of this hypothesis.^[39][46][47] For example, the observation that «this swan is white» is an instance of the universal hypothesis that «all swans are white». This approach can be given a precise formulation in first-order logic: a proposition is evidence for a hypothesis if it entails the «development of the hypothesis».^[8][15] Intuitively, the development of the hypothesis is what the hypothesis states if it was restricted to only the individuals mentioned in the evidence. In the case above, we have the hypothesis «» (all swans are white) which, when restricted to the domain «{a}», containing only the one individual mentioned in the evidence, entails the evidence, i.e. «» (this swan is white).^[8][15] One important shortcoming of this approach is that it requires that the hypothesis and the evidence are formulated in the same vocabulary, i.e. use the same predicates, like «» or «» above. But many scientific theories posit theoretical objects, like electrons or strings in physics, that are not directly observable and therefore cannot show up in the evidence as conceived here.^[8][15]

Empirical evidence (in science)[edit]

In scientific research evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory or other controlled conditions. Scientists tend to focus on how the data used during statistical inference are generated.^[1] Scientific evidence usually goes towards supporting or rejecting a hypothesis.

The burden of proof is on the person making a contentious claim. Within science, this translates to the burden resting on presenters of a paper, in which the presenters argue for their specific findings. This paper is placed before a panel of judges where the presenter must defend the thesis against all challenges.

When evidence is contradictory to predicted expectations, the evidence and the ways of making it are often closely scrutinized (see experimenter’s regress) and only at the end of this process is the hypothesis rejected: this can be referred to as ‘refutation of the hypothesis’. The rules for evidence used by science are collected systematically in an attempt to avoid the bias inherent to anecdotal evidence.

Law[edit]

In law, the production and presentation of evidence depend first on establishing on whom the burden of proof lies. Admissible evidence is that which a court receives and considers for the purposes of deciding a particular case. Two primary burden-of-proof considerations exist in law. The first is on whom the burden rests. In many, especially Western, courts, the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution in criminal cases and the plaintiff in civil cases. The second consideration is the degree of certitude proof must reach, depending on both the quantity and quality of evidence. These degrees are different for criminal and civil cases, the former requiring evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, the latter considering only which side has the preponderance of evidence, or whether the proposition is more likely true or false. The decision-maker, often a jury, but sometimes a judge decides whether the burden of proof has been fulfilled.

After deciding who will carry the burden of proof, the evidence is first gathered and then presented before the court:

Collection[edit]

In a criminal investigation, rather than attempting to prove an abstract or hypothetical point, the evidence gatherers attempt to determine who is responsible for a criminal act. The focus of criminal evidence is to connect physical evidence and reports of witnesses to a specific person.^[48]

Presentation[edit]

The path that physical evidence takes from the scene of a crime or the arrest of a suspect to the courtroom is called the chain of custody. In a criminal case, this path must be clearly documented or attested to by those who handled the evidence. If the chain of evidence is broken, a defendant may be able to persuade the judge to declare the evidence inadmissible.

Presenting evidence before the court differs from the gathering of evidence in important ways. Gathering evidence may take many forms; presenting evidence that tends to prove or disprove the point at issue is strictly governed by rules. Failure to follow these rules leads to any number of consequences. In law, certain policies allow (or require) evidence to be excluded from consideration based either on indicia relating to reliability, or broader social concerns. Testimony (which tells) and exhibits (which show) are the two main categories of evidence presented at a trial or hearing. In the United States, evidence in federal court is admitted or excluded under the Federal Rules of Evidence.^[49]

Burden of proof[edit]

The burden of proof is the obligation of a party in an argument or dispute to provide sufficient evidence to shift the other party’s or a third party’s belief from their initial position. The burden of proof must be fulfilled by both establishing confirming evidence and negating oppositional evidence. Conclusions drawn from evidence may be subject to criticism based on a perceived failure to fulfill the burden of proof.

Two principal considerations are:

1. On whom does the burden of proof rest?
2. To what degree of certitude must the assertion be supported?

The latter question depends on the nature of the point under contention and determines the quantity and quality of evidence required to meet the burden of proof.

In a criminal trial in the United States, for example, the prosecution carries the burden of proof since the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Similarly, in most civil procedures, the plaintiff carries the burden of proof and must convince a judge or jury that the preponderance of the evidence is on their side. Other legal standards of proof include «reasonable suspicion», «probable cause» (as for arrest), «prima facie evidence», «credible evidence», «substantial evidence», and «clear and convincing evidence».

In a philosophical debate, there is an implicit burden of proof on the party asserting a claim, since the default position is generally one of neutrality or unbelief. Each party in a debate will therefore carry the burden of proof for any assertion they make in the argument, although some assertions may be granted by the other party without further evidence. If the debate is set up as a resolution to be supported by one side and refuted by another, the overall burden of proof is on the side supporting the resolution.

Specific types of evidence[edit]

• Digital evidence
• Personal experience
• Physical evidence
• Relationship evidence
• Scientific evidence
• Testimonial evidence
• Trace evidence

See also[edit]

References[edit]

External links[edit]

• Evidence at PhilPapers
• Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). «Evidence». Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• «Evidence». Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• Evidence at the Indiana Philosophy Ontology Project
• ASTM E141 Standard Practice for Acceptance of Evidence Based on the Results of Probability Sampling
• «Evidence» . Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). 1911.

English[edit]

Etymology[edit]

From Middle English evidence, from Old French [Term?], from Latin evidentia (“clearness, in Late Latin a proof”), from evidens (“clear, evident”); see evident.

Pronunciation[edit]

• IPA^(key): /ˈɛvɪdəns/, /ˈɛvədəns/
• (US) IPA^(key): [ˈɛvəɾɪns]
• Hyphenation: ev‧i‧dence

Noun[edit]

evidence (usually uncountable, plural evidences)

1. Facts or observations presented in support of an assertion.
   • 1936, Rollo Ahmed, The Black Art, London: Long, page 18:

     We find material evidences of magical practices in the European caves of the Palæolithic age[.]

   • 2012 March 1, Brian Hayes, “Pixels or Perish”, in American Scientist, volume 100, number 2, page 106:

     Drawings and pictures are more than mere ornaments in scientific discourse. Blackboard sketches, geological maps, diagrams of molecular structure, astronomical photographs, MRI images, the many varieties of statistical charts and graphs: These pictorial devices are indispensable tools for presenting evidence, for explaining a theory, for telling a story.

   There is no evidence that anyone was here earlier.

   We have enough cold hard evidence in that presentation which will make a world of pain for our parasitic friends at Antarctica.

2. (law) Anything admitted by a court to prove or disprove alleged matters of fact in a trial.

   • 2004 April 15, “Morning swoop in hunt for Jodi’s killer”, in The Scotsman:

     For Lothian and Borders Police, the early-morning raid had come at the end one of biggest investigations carried out by the force, which had originally presented a dossier of evidence on the murder of Jodi Jones to the Edinburgh procurator-fiscal, William Gallagher, on 25 November last year.

3. One who bears witness.
   • 1820, [Charles Robert Maturin], Melmoth the Wanderer: A Tale. […], volume I, Edinburgh: […] Archibald Constable and Company, and Hurst, Robinson, and Co., […], →OCLC, page 53:

     He recapitulated the Sybil’s story word by word, with the air of a man who is cross-examining an evidence, and trying to make him contradict himself.

4. A body of objectively verifiable facts that are positively indicative of, and/or exclusively concordant with, that one conclusion over any other.

Usage notes[edit]

As a noun, the word evidence is usually treated as uncountable. Thus, enumeration would generally follow a formulation such as, «Five pieces of evidence were submitted. That evidence was highly convincing.» It would rarely be expressed as, «Five evidences were submitted. Those evidences were highly convincing.»

Derived terms[edit]

[edit]

• evident
• evidential

Collocations[edit]

Translations[edit]

Verb[edit]

evidence (third-person singular simple present evidences, present participle evidencing, simple past and past participle evidenced)

1. (transitive) To provide evidence for, or suggest the truth of.

   She was furious, as evidenced by her slamming the door.

   • 1941 May, “Notes and News: William Stroudley”, in Railway Magazine, page 234:

     That he was a great locomotive engineer, it would be foolish to deny or even to qualify; that he was also extremely pig-headed is fairly evidenced by David Joy, who in his ‘Diaries’ said that Stroudley always wanted his way ‘to the last nut and bolt.’

   • 1962 October, Brian Haresnape, “Focus on B.R. passenger stations”, in Modern Railways, pages 250-251:

     Elegant brick and stone buildings, with iron and glass canopies and decorative wooden scalloping and fencing—all evidencing care on the part of the architect to produce a pleasing, well-planned building—were submerged beneath a profusion of ill-conceived additions and camouflaged by vulgar paint schemes; and the original conception was lost.

   • 2022 April 6, Conrad Landin, “ScotRail in the public eye…”, in RAIL, number 954, page 39:

     «And I think we can do better, and we have to do better, because we need to evidence why public ownership of the railways is going to work for the people who use it.

Usage notes[edit]

To be distinguished from evince.

Translations[edit]

Quotations[edit]

• For quotations using this term, see Citations:evidence.

Further reading[edit]

• evidence in Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam, 1913
• “evidence”, in The Century Dictionary […], New York, N.Y.: The Century Co., 1911, →OCLC.

Czech[edit]

Pronunciation[edit]

• IPA^(key): [ˈɛvɪdɛnt͡sɛ]
• Rhymes: -ɛntsɛ

Noun[edit]

evidence f

1. records
2. registry, repository

Declension[edit]

[edit]

• See vize

See also[edit]

• záznamy
• databáze
• registr

Further reading[edit]

• evidence in Příruční slovník jazyka českého, 1935–1957
• evidence in Slovník spisovného jazyka českého, 1960–1971, 1989
• evidence in Internetová jazyková příručka

Friulian[edit]

Noun[edit]

evidence f (plural evidencis)

1. evidence

Middle French[edit]

Noun[edit]

evidence f (plural evidences)

1. evidence

Descendants[edit]

• French: évidence

types:

show 117 types…

hide 117 types…

probable cause

(law) evidence sufficient to warrant an arrest or search and seizure

cogent evidence, proof

any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something

disproof, falsification, refutation

any evidence that helps to establish the falsity of something

lead, track, trail

evidence pointing to a possible solution

symptom

(medicine) any sensation or change in bodily function that is experienced by a patient and is associated with a particular disease

sign

(medicine) any objective evidence of the presence of a disorder or disease

reductio, reductio ad absurdum

(reduction to the absurd) a disproof by showing that the consequences of the proposition are absurd; or a proof of a proposition by showing that its negation leads to a contradiction

check, confirmation, substantiation, verification

additional proof that something that was believed (some fact or hypothesis or theory) is correct

establishment, validation

the cognitive process of establishing a valid proof

confutation

evidence that refutes conclusively

counterexample

refutation by example

crepitation rale

the crackling sound heard on auscultation when patients with respiratory diseases inhale; associated with tuberculosis and pneumonia and congestive heart failure

hypermenorrhea, menorrhagia

abnormally heavy or prolonged menstruation; can be a symptom of uterine tumors and can lead to anemia if prolonged

alkalinuria, alkaluria

a condition in which the urine (which is normally slightly acidic) is alkaline

eosinopenia

a decrease in the number of eosinophils in the blood

haemoglobinemia, hemoglobinemia

presence of excessive hemoglobin in the blood plasma

haemoptysis, hemoptysis

coughing up blood from the respiratory tract; usually indicates a severe infection of the bronchi or lungs

hyperlipaemia, hyperlipemia, hyperlipidaemia, hyperlipidemia, hyperlipoidaemia, hyperlipoidemia, lipaemia, lipemia, lipidaemia, lipidemia, lipoidaemia, lipoidemia

presence of excess lipids in the blood

albuminuria, proteinuria

the presence of excessive protein (chiefly albumin but also globulin) in the urine; usually a symptom of kidney disorder

aminoaciduria

abnormal presence of amino acids in the urine; usually a symptom of metabolic defects

ammoniuria

excessive ammonia in the urine

Jacquemier’s sign

a purplish discoloration of the mucous membrane of the vagina that occurs early in pregnancy

Kayser-Fleischer ring

a pigmented ring at the outer edge of the cornea of the eye; a symptom of Wilson’s disease

keratomalacia

softening and drying and ulceration of the cornea resulting from vitamin A deficiency; symptom of cystic fibrosis or sprue

Kernig’s sign

symptom of meningitis; patient cannot extend the leg at the knee when the thigh is flexed because of stiffness in the hamstrings

acetonemia, ketonemia, ketosis

an abnormal increase of ketone bodies in the blood as in diabetes mellitus

Koplik’s spots

small red spots with white centers found on the mucous membranes of the mouth and tongue; symptom of measles that appears one or two days before the measles rash appears

glycosuria

the presence of abnormally high levels of sugar in the urine

lymphuria

the presence of lymph in the urine

monocytosis

increase in the number of monocytes in the blood; symptom of monocytic leukemia

thrombocytosis

increase in the number of platelets in the blood which tends to cause clots to form; associated with many neoplasms and chronic infections and other diseases

ochronosis

an accumulation of dark pigment in cartilage and other connective tissue; usually a symptom of alkaptonuria or phenol poisoning

hypercalcaemia, hypercalcemia

the presence of abnormally high levels of calcium in the blood; usually the result of excessive bone resorption in hyperparathyroidism or Paget’s disease

hypocalcaemia, hypocalcemia

abnormally low level of calcium in the blood; associated with hypoparathyroidism or kidney malfunction or vitamin D deficiency

hypercalcinuria, hypercalciuria

the presence of abnormally high levels of calcium in the urine; usually the result of excessive bone resorption in hyperparathyroidism or osteoporosis

hypercholesteremia, hypercholesterolemia

the presence of an abnormal amount of cholesterol in the cells and plasma of the blood; associated with the risk of atherosclerosis

hyperkalemia

higher than normal levels of potassium in the circulating blood; associated with kidney failure or sometimes with the use of diuretic drugs

hypokalemia

abnormally low level of potassium in the circulating blood leading to weakness and heart abnormalities; associated with adrenal tumors or starvation or taking diuretics

kaliuresis, kaluresis

the presence of excess potassium in the urine

natriuresis

the presence of abnormally large amounts of sodium in the urine

hypoproteinemia

abnormally low level of protein in the blood; can indicate inadequate diet or intestinal or renal disorders

hypernatremia

excessive amounts of sodium in the blood; possibly indicating diabetes insipidus

hyponatremia

abnormally low level of sodium in the blood; associated with dehydration

hypersplenism

enlarged spleen and a decrease in one or more types of blood cells; associated with many disorders

acetonuria, ketoaciduria, ketonuria

excessive amounts of ketone bodies in the urine as in diabetes mellitus or starvation

vital sign

sign of life; usually an indicator of a person’s general physical condition

amenia, amenorrhea, amenorrhoea

absence or suppression of normal menstrual flow

aura

a sensation (as of a cold breeze or bright light) that precedes the onset of certain disorders such as a migraine attack or epileptic seizure

chloasma, mask of pregnancy, melasma

a tan discoloration of a woman’s face that is associated with pregnancy or with the use of oral contraceptives

clubbing

a condition in which the ends of toes and fingers become wide and thick; a symptom of heart or lung disease

cyanosis

a bluish discoloration of the skin and mucous membranes; a sign that oxygen in the blood is dangerously diminished (as in carbon monoxide poisoning)

diuresis

increased secretion of urine; if not due to increased liquid intake or to the action of a diuretic drug it can be a symptom of diabetes mellitus

prodroma, prodrome

an early symptom that a disease is developing or that an attack is about to occur

syndrome

a pattern of symptoms indicative of some disease

effect

a symptom caused by an illness or a medication

abscess

symptom consisting of a localized collection of pus surrounded by inflamed tissue

purulence, purulency

symptom of being purulent (containing or forming pus)

exophthalmos

protrusion of the eyeball from the socket

festination

involuntary shortening of stride and quickening of gait that occurs in some diseases (e.g., Parkinson’s disease)

furring

a furlike coating of matter as on the tongue

haematuria, hematuria

the presence of blood in the urine; often a symptom of urinary tract disease

haemoglobinuria, hemoglobinuria

presence of hemoglobin in the urine

haemosiderosis, hemosiderosis

abnormal deposit of hemosiderin; often a symptom of thalassemia or hemochromatosis

nebula

cloudiness of the urine

sneeze, sneezing, sternutation

a symptom consisting of the involuntary expulsion of air from the nose

lump, puffiness, swelling

an abnormal protuberance or localized enlargement

bubo

a lymph node that is inflamed and swollen because of plague or gonorrhea or tuberculosis

palsy

a condition marked by uncontrollable tremor

pyuria

presence of white blood cells in the urine; symptom of urinary tract infection

hyperglycaemia, hyperglycemia

abnormally high blood sugar usually associated with diabetes

hypoglycaemia, hypoglycemia

abnormally low blood sugar usually resulting from excessive insulin or a poor diet

icterus, jaundice

yellowing of the skin and the whites of the eyes caused by an accumulation of bile pigment (bilirubin) in the blood; can be a symptom of gallstones or liver infection or anemia

congestion

excessive accumulation of blood or other fluid in a body part

eruption

symptom consisting of a breaking out and becoming visible

numbness

partial or total lack of sensation in a part of the body; a symptom of nerve damage or dysfunction

hurting, pain

a symptom of some physical hurt or disorder

paraesthesia, paresthesia

abnormal skin sensations (as tingling or tickling or itching or burning) usually associated with peripheral nerve damage

postnasal drip

chronic secretion of mucus from the rear of the nasal cavity into the nasopharynx

cardiomegaly, enlarged heart, megacardia, megalocardia

an abnormal enlargement of the heart

cardiac murmur, heart murmur, murmur

an abnormal sound of the heart; sometimes a sign of abnormal function of the heart valves

palpitation

a rapid and irregular heart beat

heartburn, pyrosis

a painful burning sensation in the chest caused by gastroesophageal reflux (backflow from the stomach irritating the esophagus); symptomatic of an ulcer or a diaphragmatic hernia or other disorder

flush, hot flash

sudden brief sensation of heat (associated with menopause and some mental disorders)

dyspepsia, indigestion, stomach upset, upset stomach

a disorder of digestive function characterized by discomfort or heartburn or nausea

inflammation, redness, rubor

a response of body tissues to injury or irritation; characterized by pain and swelling and redness and heat

chill, shivering

a sensation of cold that often marks the start of an infection and the development of a fever

ague, chills and fever

successive stages of chills and fever that is a symptom of malaria

cough, coughing

a sudden noisy expulsion of air from the lungs that clears the air passages; a common symptom of upper respiratory infection or bronchitis or pneumonia or tuberculosis

hiccough, hiccup, singultus

(usually plural) the state of having reflex spasms of the diaphragm accompanied by a rapid closure of the glottis producing an audible sound; sometimes a symptom of indigestion

meningism

symptoms that mimic those of meningitis but without inflammation of the meninges

nausea, sickness

the state that precedes vomiting

cramp, muscle spasm, spasm

a painful and involuntary muscular contraction

cicatrice, cicatrix, scar

a mark left (usually on the skin) by the healing of injured tissue

hardening

abnormal hardening or thickening of tissue

floater, musca volitans, muscae volitantes, spots

spots before the eyes caused by opaque cell fragments in the vitreous humor and lens

febricity, febrility, fever, feverishness, pyrexia

a rise in the temperature of the body; frequently a symptom of infection

atrophy, wasting, wasting away

a decrease in size of an organ caused by disease or disuse

apnea

transient cessation of respiration

dyspnea, dyspnoea

difficult or labored respiration

constipation, irregularity

irregular and infrequent or difficult evacuation of the bowels; can be a symptom of intestinal obstruction or diverticulitis

diarrhea, diarrhoea, looseness, looseness of the bowels

frequent and watery bowel movements; can be a symptom of infection or food poisoning or colitis or a gastrointestinal tumor

dizziness, giddiness, lightheadedness, vertigo

a reeling sensation; a feeling that you are about to fall

anaemia, anemia

a lack of vitality

wheeziness

presence of abnormal high-pitched sound heard with a stethoscope when an airway is blocked (as in asthma or chronic bronchitis)

withdrawal symptom

any physical or psychological disturbance (as sweating or depression) experienced by a drug addict when deprived of the drug

hydrophobia

a symptom of rabies in humans consisting of an aversion to swallowing liquids

areflexia

absence of a reflex; a sign of possible nerve damage

myoglobinuria

the presence of myoglobin in the urine

oliguria

abnormally small production of urine; can be a symptom of kidney disease or obstruction of the urinary tract or edema or an imbalance of fluids and electrolytes in the body

eosinophilia

a symptom of allergic states; increased eosinophils in the blood

rhinorrhea

persistent watery mucus discharge from the nose (as in the common cold)

steatorrhea

the presence of greater than normal amounts of fat in the feces which are frothy and foul smelling and floating; a symptom of disorders of fat metabolism and malabsorption syndrome

stridor

a whistling sound when breathing (usually heard on inspiration); indicates obstruction of the trachea or larynx

tinnitus

a ringing or booming sensation in one or both ears; a symptom of an ear infection or Meniere’s disease

uratemia

presence of abnormal amounts of uric acid salts in the blood; symptom of gout

uraturia

presence of abnormally large amounts of uric acid in the urine; symptom of gout

uricaciduria

presence of abnormal amounts of uric acid in the urine; symptom of gout