Species of Evidence:

A Simplified Taxonomy
CLAIM IN NEED OF EVIDENTIAL SUPPORT: “Given what we know about human behavior, we should
abolish all institutional policies and practices that are motivated by the notion of “retributive justice,” according
to which criminals are thought to blameworthy for their actions, and thus “deserve” to be “punished” for their
behavior. We should replace this model with a system guided by behavior-modification and harm-reduction.”

SMALL GROUP CHALLENGE:

Step One: Consider the three different kinds of evidence below

Step Two: Whether or not you agree, explain how someone could use the evidence examples in order
to support the claim above.

1. Empirical Evidence: Evidence that appeals to recorded observations of facts about the empirical world.

Applied Example: “One recent study from our team reported that incarcerated adolescent boys who had
committed homicide showed reduced gray matter in areas of the brain responsible for executive functioning
and behavioral control.

[...] The research looked at structural MRI data from subjects categorized into three groups: 203
"homicidal" subjects (including self-reported homicide offenses and explicit attempted murder convicts),
475 violent but non-homicidal subjects (including assault, domestic violence, and other cases consisting of
serious bodily harm), and 130 minimally violent subjects (drug possession, prostitution and other crimes
resulting in no serious injury to others). The results strikingly found a number of gray matter differences in
the brains of those subjects who committed a homicide, compared to the other two groups.

[…] The reductions in gray matter among homicide offenders were evident in a number of brain areas
important for affective processing, social cognition, and strategic behavioral control. Prominently featured
in these results are the orbitofrontal/ventromedial prefrontal cortex, the anterior temporal cortex, insula,
medial prefrontal/anterior cingulate and precuneus/posterior cingulate cortex.

[…][I]t should be recognized that the localized deficits in gray matter exhibited in this sample of homicide
offenders are not necessarily specific to homicidal behavior. Instead, these patterns may indicate impairment
across a wide range of emotion and cognitive systems that together reduce essential checks and balances in
executive function, moral judgement, and behavioral controls.”
2. Intuitive Evidence: Evidence drawn from self-evident truths accessible through contemplation alone:

Examples:

“2 + 2 = 4”
“The same dress cannot both be completely red and completely green at the same time”
“Pleasure is, all else being equal, better than pain.”

Applied Example: “Consider the following thought experiment involving Mr. Puppet: Mr. Puppet would
not exist at all except for the dastardly plans of devious scientists, who carefully selected each of Mr.
Puppet’s genes, and raised him in a carefully controlled environment, making sure to traumatize him in very
precise ways. All of this eventually causes Mr. Puppet to commit a murder, just as the scientists had planned.
Intuitively, while we may be justified in confining Mr. Puppet to prevent bad things from happening, it
seems clear that Mr. Puppet does not deserve to be punished for this act. ”

3. Conceptual Evidence: Evidence drawn from the meanings of conceptual terms:

Examples:
“All squares are rectangles”
“All bachelors are unmarried”

Applied Example: “The very idea of retributive punishment depends upon the idea that certain actions are
blameworthy or praiseworthy, an idea which in turn depends upon the inseparable concepts of
“responsibility” and “free will.” To be responsible for an action is for that action to be freely willed; Free will
consists in one’s ability to deliberately determine their own actions using their own rational faculties. This is
why our intuitions converge on the conclusion that Mr. Puppet does not deserve to be punished: given what
we know about his background, he is not responsible, as his behavior is clearly not the result of free will.”

QUICKWRITE: MOVING THE DIALECTIC WITH EVIDENCE

(1) Pose a diverging perspective on your peer’s topic

(2) How could we appeal to evidence in order to help up us decide which perspective was closer to
the truth? What evidence is already available? And what kind of evidence would we need to find?
Give examples wherever possible.

(3) How do you think the student could use evidence in order to motivate their preferred
perspective?