The Evidence That Is Not

Truth is primary. Evidence is secondary and conditional. Evidence of any fact or aspect of existing reality may or may not appear, relative to the limited subjectivity of any given observer. The statement, “There is no evidence that A exists,” is always in the last analysis self-referential. It means literally, “I am unaware of the existence of A.” It is a confession of ignorance, not a foundation of knowledge that can serve as a basis for judgment. Although this is true, there has arisen, in the wake of science, a pseudo-scientific presumption that, if there is no evidence of a thing, it does not exist. A type of pseudo-scientific police force has emerged to judge upon matters of all kinds, including matters that are properly outside the jurisdiction of science. An assertion that is not backed up by evidence convincing to observers is naturally doubted, but this is a reminder of the limits of knowledge, not a firm basis of judgment. As courts in the American tradition were originally biased in favor of innocence (making positive evidence a standard for conviction of a crime), they were not impartial; similarly, the “scientific” bias in favor of positive evidence is not impartial and cannot become a standard of truth; it can only serve as a standard of discovery and affirmation. We can affirm what has been proved to our satisfaction, but a lack of evidence proves nothing except that there is a lack of evidence. Moreover, what is evident to one may not be evident to another.