Relative and Absolute Evidence

A paper I wrote in 2017: Relative and Absolute Evidence – Tom Fusillo

In this term paper, written for an undergraduate philosophy of mind course, I put forth original ideas on what qualifies as legitimate evidence. I am especially proud of this piece because it is one of the first formal philosophy papers I’ve written that consists mostly of original proposals, rather than critiques of previously put-forth theories.

In the paper I explain my theory that there are two types of evidence that can and should be used in arguments and normal thought:

1. Relative Evidence
2. Absolute Evidence

In the paper I first explain the criteria for relative and absolute evidence, and that a piece of potential evidence must fall into one or both of these categories to be considered valid and used legitimately in forming beliefs and arguments. I then discuss several objections to this proposal, mainly the objections of a brain in a vat scenario and continuity.