Indirect Evidence

Can we trust indirect evidence as a way to establish the objective reality of a thing or event?



Key Terms:
"Indirect Evidence"
"Objective Reality"
"Thing"
"Event"
"Objectivity"

I think we have to. This gets into the importance of the correct use of "words" to convey "ideas." If "objective reality" is simply "the way things actually are", we can't possibly collect "direct evidence" by experiencing everything in the world to prove to ourselves the "objective reality" of all things/events. We are going to have to rely on "indirect evidence" - but importantly this indirect evidence must be communicated using words and ideas, the definition(s) of which we all agree on.

Is this a trick question? "Can we trust indirect evidence as a way to establish the objective reality of a thing or event?" In the absence of direct evidence (personally experiencing a thing) we must rely on indirect evidence to establish an objective reality. But can we trust the indirect evidence that is present?

"If an given fact is something to which we have access, then the surest way to establish its factualness is to put ourselves in its presence. We then have direct evidence of it. If we cannot establish its factulness by direct evidence, we must rigorously test the authenticity and reliability of whatever indirect evidnece we appeal to so that, on the basis of that evidence, we can confidently establish the factualness of the thing." (McInerny, p. 6)

Two thoughts occurred to me as I read this passage:

First thought. If a given fact is something we have access to (God), then the surest way for us to establish its (God's) factualness is to put ourselves in God's presence. Spending time in the presence of God, through prayer, in the Sacraments and in reading His word gives us direct experience of Him.

Second thought. "We must rigorously test the authenticity and reliability of whatever indirect evidnece we appeal to..." Agreement between parties as to the factualness of a premise may be enough to move an argument forward, but it may not be enough to ensure the reliability and authenticity of the premise. I wonder how many times I have agreed to accept as fact that which I have not rigorously tested?

I for one will trust indirect evidence. Let me give you an example... I'm pretty sure that the person who asked this question is a man... but I'm not checking!

As McInerny said:
Lying is more of a psychological problem than a logical one.

If Jake wants to lie about it, I'm not going to question him.

iNDIRECT EVIDENCE TO ESATABLISH FACTS REASONES THRU INDUCTION. CERTAINTY OF FACTS GROWS AS NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS LEAD TO SAME INDUCTION.
DEDUCTION ON OTHER HAND REQUIRES ONE OBSERVATION.
DEDUCTION-I EXIST THERFORE I AM.
INDUCTION-I'M GOOD PERSON REQUIRES MANY OBSERVATION TO ESTABLISH THAT AS A FACT.