The role of evidence for proving the basis of ideas is critical but also precarious. So much of current scientific thinking hinges upon it. In some cases there can almost be a mystification of evidence claims through a bombardment of baffling statistics, graphs and other aspects of quantitative evidence.

In saying that it is critical I am saying that we need reasons to believe any viewpoint. One of the reasons we believe in the hard sciences and reject some of the ideas in social science is that great bodies of experiments have been built up to prove the ideas. Of course, the analysis of data is crucial and it can be possible to refute the ideas by this method rather than based on arguments alone.

However, it is precarious in the sense that bias comes into the picture. It is well known that there is a participant observer bias. But there are probably subtle biases which are very strong too, such as the wishes of those who undertake the research. For example, the effects of certain medications are sponsored by the pharmaceutical company which manufature the drugs.This was suggested by James Davies(2013) in his book 'Cracked: Why Psychiatry is Doing More Harm Than Good.' it is possible that there is more than just accidental bias but that it can be 'deliberate. It is possible to create a body of evidence to support views.

In regard to my third suggestion of mystifying evidence obviously this has its limitations because there will be people who can see beyond this. But at the same time it is possible to build up an argument by just pointing to what appears to be a solid body of research. I probably will not be popular for saying this, but I have even seen people on this site claiming a view by just providing a link to an article or video without giving any detail of the validity of the evidence provided. To just provide evidence in this way is lazy and meaningless. Mere reference to research without any analysis of it is like undigested food.

But, that aside where does philosophy stand, hopping between opinion and solid evidence. If there is no evidence perhaps it is clever opinions. I am sure this can even be true of legal cases too, because it is possible to fuzz over truth by clever use of words. I would say that the best option is to look at all the facets of information we have in the most careful way, to establish the most enlightened picture possible, until a better one emerges.

But what I am saying lacks any evidence and can be seen as fuzzy play of thoughts and words, so perhaps it can be superseded by a more objective answer in the next person who makes a comment.

What if someone provided a link to research from a very good research university that followed very rigorous protocols? Can their evidence be given powerful consideration even if we ourselves aren't able to review everything that has been done personally? They say they saw the higgs boson. Not sure I can doubt them. Lol.

When it comes to proof, I think there are accepted standards in place for us to consider something as proof.

Its "evidence" that's more tricky. As you mentioned the difference between the two possibilities you mentioned causing the pencil to move: gravity or telekinesis.

That's why I prefer the scientific method in determining whether something can be considered as evidence or not. Otherwise, all it takes is a charismatic speaker to convince others that the evidence is valid.

Everything is literally evidence of something. However, what it is evidence of is entirely open to perception, thus the weak connections in claims and courtroom manipulation of juries. Given the nature of how everyone possesses a unique perception that exists in contrast to all others by varying margins there can be no absolutes in relation to any explanations of evidence. Scientific or otherwise.

Evidence is one of those words that holds great weight in our perceptions. It’s often associated as an undeniable truth. Incredibly misleading.

Proof and evidence can and oft are used interchangeably. This is due to the fluid nature of the term proof. Evidence is meant to determine proof, however the amount of evidence needed to reach this goal can vary dramatically based on the evidence itself. Most often one is enough for perception to easily take a side. It’s why rumors/gossip are so commonly shared and believed. Proof is perceptual. Evidence is actual.

I was always unsure about the difference between evidence and proof. My current stance on this issue is that proofs are whole arguments that demonstrate the truth of a claim but evidence refers to premises or even the meaningful components of premises that ground proofs. In ordinary discourse the two are interchangeable but that's probably misuse/abuse of these, now, technical terms.

1. Jack's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
2. Only Jack was there when the victim died
Ergo,
3. Jack is the murderer

The entire chain of reasoning (1, 2, and 3) is a proof.

The premises 1, 2, Jack's fingerprints, the murder weapon, the person who testified that or footage that established premise 2 constitute evidence.