“All evidence, or at least almost all evidence, has this double aspect. It is typically based on other evidence, and it is also evidence of something else. When we say that an item of evidence is evidence of something, therefore, we need to bear in mind that the item of evidence is also the something that another piece of evidence is the evidence of.”

I hope I’m not the only one who has to read that twice ^^

A book about the differentiating standards of evidence, most commonly those used in the context of law, and how we weight the veracity of differing types of evidence. Particularly interesting was the way that different types of evidence overlap, and build into each other, as the quote above illustrates

“Linked to the question "For what?" is the question "Compared to what?" Not only do we need to know the purposes for which a piece of evidence is being put, or the hypotheses it is being used to test, before we know whether the evidence is relevant, whether we should consider it, and how much weight we should give it, but we also need to know what alternative evidence will be used if the evidence under consideration cannot be used. And that inquiry includes the possibility of "none."

At times a bit dry, but overall informative, this book is worth reading for those interested in epistemology and/or critical thinking.