Hypothetically Hypothetical

What does hypothetical mean?

Webster's definition; “involving or being based on a suggested idea or theory : being or involving a hypothesis”. 

Since hypothetical describes an outcome which is based on certain conditions, that indicates the hypothesis is only true in the scenario where the conditions of the content are true. This is where the term “hypothetical scenario” comes from, as it’s a scenario where the hypothesis is stated to only be true, assuming the conditions are true. 

Conditions which are required to cause a certain hypothesized outcome, are basically a type of context. Context is basically a way to specify an outline of any factors relevant to cause an outcome, as I further explained in my 2nd last post; Context of Context. In the case of a hypothetical scenario, the outcome (or hypothesis) is based on a certain context. The specific factors involved which cause the hypothesized outcome, are the context. 

When a scenario is being described as “hypothetical”, since it is insinuating that the outcome is only true under the circumstances of specific context, the outcome itself does not necessarily have to exist or be true in current circumstances. The outcome could possibly be true, or could be true at another time or location, but it could also never be true. It all depends on the circumstances of context. Regardless of whether the outcome itself is true, an overall hypothetical statement can still be correct, as long as the stated context would cause the hypothesized outcome. It’s like a hypothesized equation: context = outcome. Either side of the equation does not need to currently exist, but the context must cause the effect of the hypothesis, for it to be correct. 

Something which is conditional is similar to hypothetical, since they are both an insinuation that only under certain context an outcome will occur. A conditional statement is different from a hypothetical statement, because it only includes scenarios where the factors of context are assumed to exist. A statement seems to only be considered conditional, if the context is plausible to occur based on current knowledge. Whereas a hypothetical statement can include context involving a combination of factors which do not exist. The defining element of a hypothetical statement seems to be that the combination of factors which make the context, have not been proven or observed (based on current knowledge). The lack of proof of the context causing the outcome, is why it involves a hypothesis. 

Something which is hypothetical seems to be an outcome which is assumed to be true, if context which is unproven would occur, based on known causes and effects. Since that which is “proven”, is indistinct (as I further explained in a post from 12 days ago; Proven Fact), potentially any knowledge could be considered not proven, so in a way, anything could be Hypothetically Hypothetical.  

Preference Reference

What causes preference, and what does it apply to?

To prefer something, is to like or appeal to it. But what causes someone to like 1 option over another? Preferring something, is a significant aspect of subjectiveness, since subjectiveness is based on an individual's opinion (as I further analysed in a post from 1 week ago; Objective Subjectivity). If someone’s opinion is based on their interpretation, which functions by sensory perception and memory access of that which they have perceived (as I further described in a post from 5 days ago; Interpretation of Interpretation), then it seems that opinion is very similar to preference. 

Both, an opinion or preference, are basically someone’s subjective view, based on interpretation, that a certain option or category is better than another. The outcome of either of these concepts, seem to be determined through their minds interpretation, which causes that person’s estimate of which option they think is better. Any estimate of preference is made, based on information they’ve gained, which is not 100% accurate, so virtually comes down to a best guess (as I further explained in a post from ½ a month ago; Best Guess).

There seems to be 2 categories of causes of preference; subconscious, and conscious. Subconscious preference would basically be the concept of liking an option, without considering cause and effect of the factors involved. It would be caused by memory access of factors involved, and based on how memory of those factors are linked with reinforcement triggers. I explained more about subconsciousness in a post from about 10 months ago; Subconscious Subjection, and reinforcement triggers in a post from 1.5 months ago; Reinforcement Mechanisms. So this type of preference is basically a best guess of subconscious memory access of factors involved in the option, and based on which factors in memory, trigger the most reinforcement. 

The reinforcement could be positive, to influence preference of that factor, or negative, to influence preference of another factor. Besides positive and negative reinforcement, there is also reinforcement of the neural pathway, to cause ease of memory access to a certain factor, based on repeated use of that memory. This neural pathway reinforcement is basically the cause for habits, which can also cause preference. A repeated reaction is likely developed from some degree of reinforcement triggers to begin with, so a reinforced neural pathway is effectively still positive or negative reinforcement triggers.

If subconscious preference is determined by a best guess of memory access which the person is not aware of, then perhaps someone can have a preference without even realizing it. If an individual is presented with options, the mind would always make a best guess, based on which factor in memory has more reinforcement connected to it. So even if someone consciously thinks they have no preference, in reality, they do still have a preference, which is subconscious, but they are unaware of it. In a way, every person has some degree of hypothetical preference for every minimal aspect which is saved in their subconscious memory. It just doesn't come into play, until the person actually uses memory access, when options are portrayed to them.

Conscious preference would still function by utilizing memory of factors connected with reinforcement triggers, but it would use memory access to more specific factors involved in the options. Instead of only the basic and most obvious general factors involved in an option, the mind would access memory of details of the causes and effects of those basic factors. For eg, if I have some options for lunch, my subconscious preference might simply choose pizza delivery with 5 toppings, because my subconscious has a lot of positive reinforcement connected to memory of that factor (of pizza), from good taste and ease of delivery. But my conscious preference might then access memory of the effects caused by eating unhealthy pizza, and the effects of the extra cost for delivery and toppings. These details of extra factors, caused by the basic factor, might have enough negative reinforcement connected in memory, to trigger me to prefer another option instead. 

Your mind's reference for preference, seems to function based on a best guess, determined from subjective interpretation. It can be subconscious, based on memory of basic factors, or conscious, based on more detail of causes and effects. Either way, memory access connected to reinforcement triggers, seems to be the main process of; Preference Reference.

Context of Context

What is context, and how relevant is it?

My best generalized description of context, might be; an outline of parameters which are relevant to a concept.
Oxfords definition; the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.

It seems that context mainly applies to concepts of something occurring, rather than an object or factor, since circumstances are involved which are relevant to an action. By concept, I mean basically any action where an effect is caused. This could be a specific physical occurrence, or it could be a generalized concept, which describes a common effect being caused by varying factors. Some form of cause and effect seems to always be involved in context, since context seems to describe extra elements which have an influencing effect. 

Circumstances which have an effect on the concept, seem fundamental for context, since if the circumstances did not affect it, there would be no point to include or specify those factors of circumstances. If no context is specified, then that means there are unknown factors which influence the concept. If there are unknown factors, this means the information about the concept is less accurate, and less useful for applying the concept or predicting an outcome. With incomplete context comes more room for error, from guessing incorrectly what the resulting effect of the concept will be. 

If something is “taken out of context”, this usually means a concept has been applied to circumstances which are incorrect. Factors of circumstances which influence the concept, have been applied, which do not directly cause the insinuated result of the context.

Complete context would be an outline of every factor which affects a concept in any way. Hypothetically, with complete context, a prediction can be made with 100% accuracy. If every fine detail which has any minor influence on the cause of an effect, is known, then the outcome can be calculated completely accurately. A concept within complete context seems to be the only way that a result can be predicted with 100% accuracy. 

This seems to be different from an individual being 100% certain, since someone can never be 100% certain of the context itself. This is because context is only known by someone through their interpretation, which is through sensory perception and memory access, which is not 100% accurate, as I further explained in my 2nd last post; Interpretation of Interpretation. Since context is not 100% certain, that means accuracy is not 100% certain. So it seems that 100% accuracy with complete context, hypothetically exists, yet nobody can be 100% certain of that accuracy. This is relatable to the concept of facts, which I questioned in a post from 1 week ago; Proven Fact. Facts are hypothetically 100% true, but nobody can be 100% certain that something is indeed a fact. 

Context seems to be quite relevant, since it increases accuracy of the result of a concept. The less that context is specified, the less details of factors which influence the result, are known. With less influencing elements known, comes more room for error. Complete context can allow 100% accuracy, but since context cant be 100% certain, this is only hypothetical, just like the; Context of Context.

Intangibility of Intangibility

What causes a concept or idea to be intangible?

By ‘intangible”, I basically mean; something that is vague and difficult to understand or value in concrete terms. The function of the mind’s interpretation is an important aspect in questioning what causes something to be intangible. If something is difficult to understand for someone in concrete terms, it should be relative to that person's interpretation. In my last post; Interpretation of Interpretation, I analysed the process of interpretation, regarding how someone's mind interprets anything it receives through sensory perception. At a basic level, the mind seems to subconsciously interpret that which is perceived through the senses, by recognizing patterns, and reinforcing memory of patterns. This information is likely to be fairly tangible, since it has been directly perceived. 

But when it comes to conscious interpretation, it involves not only those basic patterns (which represent factors), but combinations of more than 1 pattern of a factor, as well as how those factors interacted (more details in a post from 2yrs ago; Conscious Comprehension). These concepts, of the cause and effect of the interaction of factors, can often still be tangible for the mind to grasp, as long as the interaction has been directly perceived by the individual. For eg; the interaction of an animal running fast causing the effect of that animal's lungs to lack oxygen, after a time period, is a fairly tangible concept for anyone who has experienced it themselves. Another example is giving an example, which perhaps makes a concept more tangible, since you can access memories of the factors and interaction which is described.

But once a concept involves an interaction or factors which have not been directly perceived by an individual, it becomes more intangible. If sensory perception has not recorded and saved the interaction or factors, in memory, the idea of a concept becomes much more difficult to grasp, since some component of the interaction can not be accessed in memory. To some degree, people can still understand concepts which they haven't witnessed, but this involves a step of accessing memory of a new combination of factors and interaction. Each component still must be saved in memory from sensory perception, but new combinations can be accessed in a process of a hypothetical thought experiment. This is similar to an aspect of the concept of imagination, as I further imagined in a post from 22 months ago Imaginate. 

In the scenario of someone trying to conceptualize something they have not directly witnessed, they access memory of factors which they have perceived before, then access memory of the interaction (involving other factors) which they have perceived, and try to combine memory access of the separate components. The more accurate that the person has each component saved in memory, the more tangible it should be. For eg, if you try to conceptualize (or imagine) an orange monkey flying in a hurricane, you access memory of each component which you have perceived before, and which is saved as separate memories; the color orange, the picture of a monkey, a hurricane, and the interaction of flying. If you have witnessed each of those components, you can combine memory access to make it somewhat tangible, but likely less tangible than something you have witnessed the entire combination of (perhaps a monkey climbing a tree in a jungle). 

When more components of a concept have not been saved in memory, it becomes more intangible. The concept of; “electrons do not orbit the nucleus in the manner of a planet orbiting the sun, but instead exist as standing waves”, is at such a microscoping scale, that it is more intangible from a lack of direct sensory perception. Or the concept of; outer space going for infinity, should be more intangible, due to a lack of witnessing something having no end.

The degree of accuracy of memory, which someone has from direct sensory perception of the combination of components of a concept, seems to be quite relative to how tangible it is. If each component has been witnessed, someone can still make a new memory combination to conceptualize something new, making it somewhat tangible, but if factors or the interaction have not been perceived before, it becomes more intangible. The factors and interaction of this entire concept itself, may explain the; Intangibility of Intangibility.

Interpretation of Interpretation

How does interpretation function?

How accurate is it?

My interpretation of the meaning of interpretation: collaboration of perception.

Wikipedia’s interpretation: Interpretation (philosophy), the assignment of meanings to various concepts, symbols, or objects under consideration

Interpretation can apply to many situations. A practical and more tangible situation might be someone explaining to someone else what they believe was the meaning of a philosophy article, and how they think it applies. This is a scenario of 1 person verbally explaining their own understanding and comprehension of something. But a more common and ongoing scenario of interpretation, might be; anyone’s mind interpreting everything it receives through perception. This would be a scenario of interpretation which always takes place before, and directly affects, anyone’s attempt to explain their interpretation to someone else. 

Everything which someones mind receives through sensory perception is interpreted in some way. That which is perceived through the senses is not recorded 100% accurately. Since any person or animals senses have a relevant lack of accuracy of measurement, and there is a massive amount of measurements being perceived by the senses at most times, the mind attempts to distinguish everything it is receiving. Since the brain functions as a reaction system, it is meant to determine the best reaction to that which is perceived of the surroundings. In order to trigger an effective reaction, the brain needs to recognize patterns of what is being perceived. This function of recognition is, in essence, a basic process of interpretation. The brain can then use either instinct or memory to cause an effective reaction, based on patterns perceived. 

Throughout the lifetime of an animal or person, the more times that a pattern is perceived and recognized, the more that pattern will be accessed in memory, making the neural combination which represents that pattern, easier to access. This causes an increase of likeliness that certain patterns will be focused on and accessed in memory, making the mind more likely to interpret sensory perception of those patterns. These patterns are usually measurements of sensory perception of what we can refer to as “factors”. Subconscious memory seems to mainly utilize basic recognition and interpretation of factors, to cause a reaction. But once the mind has saved many common patterns in memory, which can be interpreted, the interaction of those patterns can require more complex interpretation.

If a mind has the capability of sufficient interpretation, it can start to recognize patterns of combinations of factors and the interaction of those factors. Once a mind can recognize in memory, a pattern of how factors interact (requiring some time frame for interaction), it can basically interpret cause and effect. This complexity of interpretation seems to be basically the function of consciousness, as I further explained in a post from 2 yrs ago; Conscious Comprehension. With this capability, comes the potential to learn and save in memory, a multitude of concepts of how various factors in this world interact. But perhaps with this increase in complexity of pattern recognition, comes an increase of difficulty for interpretation.

Since even sensory perception is inaccurate with measurements, and interpretation of basic patterns can be inaccurate, the incorporation of multiple patterns and their interaction, can be even more inaccurate. Generally, the more times an inaccurate # is combined, the more inaccurate the total will be. Beyond the difficulty of interpreting combinations in memory, representing the interaction of factors which have been perceived, there is interpretation of the interaction of factors which have not been perceived by the senses or saved in memory. 

A lot of information which people receive (especially in modern day society), represents concepts of interactions that they have not perceived themselves. This involves an extra step of interpretation, through accessing memory of 1 aspect of an interaction which they have perceived, and combining that memory of interaction, with memory of other factors (or combinations of factors) which they have also perceived. This is a component of the concept of imagination, which I further described in a post from about 22 months ago; Imaginate. It basically involves comprehending an interaction, and hypothetically applying that interaction to alternate factors. This adds difficulty of interpretation which might be described as being intangible. 

A basic function of interpretation seems to be; the mind recognizing patterns received through sensory perception. When a mind can recognize patterns of interactions of multiple factors, this becomes more complex interpretation, to comprehend cause and effect. Combining memory of interactions with memory of alternate factors, is comprehending new concepts hypothetically, and an even more difficult and inaccurate process of interpretation. That itself, might explain the difficulty of; Interpretation of interpretation. 

Objective Subjectivity

What are the outlines for something to be considered objective or subjective?

Since definitions seem that they can be subjective, I’ll try to make this more objective (if there are degrees of objectivity?), by defining “objective”, and “subjective”. My subjective interpretation of the definition of “subjective”: a factor or variable which is based on or relative to individual interpretation. 

An objective (or more so?) definition, from Oxford, of “subjective”: “based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.”

This technical definition does not seem entirely objective, because, as I analysed in my last post; Define Define, all definitions seem somewhat subjective to the individuals interpretation of meaning. For eg, Oxford's definition of “subjective” seems subjective in itself, because the exact meaning of “feelings, tastes, or opinions” can be just as the definition describes; based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. The exact components which those 3 words are composed of, are not entirely distinct. What exactly are “feelings, tastes, or opinions”? These 3 concepts could be referring to some combination of emotions, neurochemicals, memory access, and possibly more, but the exact components are not exact, and therefore individual interpretation of the meaning, is involved. There is a general idea of what these concepts mean, but it still involves some degree of personal best guess, which seems to be basically what “opinions” are. So if “subjective” basically means; based on a personal best guess, and the exact meaning of virtually all communication, as well as all choices and reactions (as I further estimated in a post from 9 days ago; Best Guess) are based on a personal best guess (to some degree), then what is not subjective?

A (less subjective) definition of “objective”; not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

It seems that any situation of considering or representing facts, involves some degree of personal interpretation of that which is represented. I further considered individual estimates of facts in my 2nd last post; Proven Fact. There is always an individual best guess of the meaning of any information that is being represented. 

But since this definition itself of “objective” is open for interpretation, the meaning of “not influenced” could be interpreted in different ways. This could mean 100% lacking of influence (which I already referenced), or it could mean majoritively, or to a significantly high degree -lacking of influence. If the meaning of objective is <%100 lacking of influence, and at least some miniscule degree of influence is acceptable, then some information or facts could potentially be objectively considered or represented. That information which is to be regarded as objective, would then be to some degree of objectivity, and require an individual best guess of its applicability to be considered objective.

Perhaps there is another scenario where facts can be completely objective. Facts or information might be completely objective if interpretation is taken out of the scenario. In a way, this may only include hypothetical scenarios. Hypothetically, there probably are facts or information which is 100% correct. These facts can not be known 100% by any individual, since interpretation is involved for anyone's knowledge of anything, therefore making it only a best guess based on information that the individual has. But information can be referred to as objective, as an insinuation of the intention of meaning of facts that are true, regardless of interpretation. 

It seems that in a way, everything that we are aware of, or communicate with others, relies on individual opinion of a best guess, through interpretation. Any knowledge or ideas that anyone has, could be considered some degree of subjective, and the degree of subjectiveness might be relative to the degree of personalized influence. A significantly small degree of personalized influence, could allow some degree of objectivity, unless objectiveness is considered 100% lacking of influence. If 100% is required, then objectiveness can still be referred to as a hypothetical, but once anything has been interpreted, it may be subject to; Objective Subjectivity.

Define Define

What is the definition of definition?

What are the parameters of any given definition?

A technical definition of definition is "a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary."

But what is meant by "exact"? In the process of describing the meaning of any word, the meaning of each word in that description should be understood. If every definition of every word, only uses more words, which are defined by more words, can any meaning of a word ever be definitively outlined "exactly"? 

For there to be a precise specification of a construct, each component of that construct must be specified, otherwise it is an estimate. If a definition is a construct of words, for it to be stated exactly, each word must be specified exactly. If each word is specified using another construct of more words, it seems the components can never be specified exactly. It seems an estimate is required.

Every word we use has to be estimated of its meaning, by any individual involved in the communication. This is a similar concept to "facts" as I described in my last post; Proven Fact. Since there is no 100% certainly correct knowledge, that which is a fact, can be determined to very high probability, especially with agreement and confirmation by others, but it still comes down to the best estimate of any individual, for whether it is correct. The same applies to the definition of any word. The meaning of a word, is ultimately a best estimate.

A technical definition describing the meaning of a word, can make an estimate more probable, as a system of coordination, intended to be a standard for common agreement. But even when it comes to technical definitions, there are often multiple sources, with different constructs, and each component of that construct, still needs another construct of it's own. In any scenario, the choice of source for a technical definition, can be debatable, making definitions even less distinct. In every day life, there is no specific source which must be used for more accurate estimation of a definition, so perhaps the best that can be done to increase probability of accuracy, is to come to an agreement on a source. This might be effective in contexts requiring higher accuracy of the meaning of words, but difficult to apply to general circumstances. 

Besides technical definitions, any individual can have their own definition of any word. This is likely to be applicable to common situations throughout life. Very few people have technical definitions memorised, so when it comes to practicality, any word which someone uses in typical life, would be referring to their subjective interpretation of the meaning of that word. The real intention of meaning of any word that someone uses, is subconscious memory most of the time. It's only if a definition is requested, that the person will then consciously access memories of the specifics involved in the meaning. 

It seems that even with a concept which is meant to be precisely accurate, such as a definition, it still turns out to be indistinct, and require subjective interpretation, to some degree. When the construct of a definition, is made from components which are only made from different combinations of of the same type of component, there ends up being no exact measurement of any components. With common use of words, using a highly varying individualized meaning, standardized descriptions of the constructs can help increase probability of accuracy. But ultimately, some degree of estimate of probability is utilized to define anything, including an attempt to Define Define.

Proven Fact

What are the qualifications for something to be proven or a fact?

Upon 1st thought and glance, facts seem certain, and it seems obvious whether or not something has been proven.
Proven; is something which evidence has demonstrated to be true right?
Fact; is information known to be true right? 

On 2nd thought, looking deeper, is it all so distinct?
Who decides on the quantity and accuracy of evidence for something to be considered proven?
And how certain must how many people be, of a fact?

The slight difference between “proven” and “fact”, seems to be that proven is more based on context and adaptable to new variables, where a fact is more commonly understood as information which is true, regardless of context or interpretation. 

Since something proven (or proof for short (in this meaning of the term proof)) is more adaptable to context, it is similar to evidence, but seems to be a more finalized stage of a proposal, than evidence. Proof seems to include a sufficient degree of evidence in its requirement. In my last post; Evidence of Evidence, I questioned what is considered to be evidence. It seems that for something to be considered evidence, it requires interpretation of a best estimate, and agreement between parties involved in the context. There is a broad spectrum of degrees of evidence, based on (usually) an estimate of probability. Proof seems to be a similar concept, in that it requires a Best Guess (as further explained in that post) of any individuals involved. In the situation of proof, it seems to be a best estimate of sufficiency of any more specific portions of evidence involved in a proposition being conclusively proven. So not only do any individuals involved, have to estimate the relevancy of each portion of evidence, but also estimate whether or not all the evidence combined is accurate and probable enough. Since the relevancy of total evidence is an estimate on a virtual scale from low to high probability, that which is considered proven, does not seem so distinct. 

A “fact” still fits the definition and concept of something that has been proven, but is information which has been accepted to be proven so many times, by so many people, that it is commonly assumed to be completely true. The term “fact” also usually infers that the information is true in objective reality, regardless of subjective interpretation. By this understanding, it seems there would indeed be distinct facts about objective reality. But determining what information does actually describe objective reality, can still be subjective. Just because there may be absolute truth, doesn't mean any person knows that absolute truth. It still comes down to individuals, to make a best estimate of probability of which information is most likely to be that absolute truth about objective reality. Confirmation of others, such as commonly accepted “facts” makes the probability quite high that the information is objectively true, but from the highest probable “fact”, every other bit of information is somewhere lower on the scale of probability. As every bit of information known to humanity has some different degree of accuracy of measurement (or evidence), and a different degree of total sum agreement, this means, even for a “fact”, there is a scale of Indistinctivity, requiring a best estimate, based on interpretation, of whether the information qualifies.

For something to be proven, it seems that, just as each portion of evidence involves interpretation, so too does the total evidence require an estimate for sufficiency. A fact may refer to objective truth, but to determine which information qualifies, involves a subjective estimate, on a scale of probability. The lack of distinction and certainty of proof or facts in this world, is (highly probably, but not certainly); Proof of Fact.

Evidence of Evidence

In general, what are the parameters for something to be considered evidence?

Technical definitions of evidence;
Oxford: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Wikipedia: anything presented in support of an assertion.

Webster: an outward sign : INDICATION. something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY

These definitions seem to be surprisingly vague, with a lack of specific parameters, but perhaps that makes sense. According to Oxford, information only has to indicate that a belief is true. That which counts as [indicating], could be subjective. The Wikipedia definition seems to have a similar meaning, but even less specific. Something [presented in support] could be subjective, as well. Webster outlines evidence as an [indication] or something that [furnishes] proof. Both of which terms, also seem to be open for interpretation and understanding by the parties involved in any context of evidence.

If interpretation is a component, of whether or not any given information supports a proposition (and can be considered evidence), then it seems to come down to the best estimate of any individuals involved. There may be many circumstances where it is extremely obvious that the presented information supports the proposition, but theoretically, no information is 100% certain, and therefore the validity of any information, is still only some degree of probable, within a spectrum of probability (further hypothesis of this concept, in a post from 1.5yrs ago; Indistinctivity). If the validity of any information is only somewhere within a range, that means anyones interpretation, is only is only a best estimate. I further questioned the concept of; every interpretation of someone resulting in a reaction, being virtually a best estimate, in my last post; Best Guess. 

Since, that which can count as evidence (according to these definitions), seems to be based on interpretation (or “best guess”), perhaps it is a requirement that all parties within the context, agree that the information does indeed indicate the proposition. Agreement seems to be required in any general circumstances, for information to be considered “evidence”. This seems to make sense, since if information is being used to try to convince someone else of a proposition, the information has no function within the context, if the receiver of information, does not agree. 

Besides evidence in general, there are more specific types of evidence, which may require more specific parameters. 3 types of evidence that I found through quick research, which seem reasonably applicable to general situations, would be; Empirical, Logical, & Anecdotal. Here are basic definitions:

Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation.
Logical evidence is used to prove or disprove an idea using reasoning.
Anecdotal evidence consists of stories that have been experienced by a person.

Empirical evidence is commonly used in science to “prove” something with repeated procedures of experiments or observations. If the recorded data from the experiments shows the same result through enough consistent reproductions, it can be regarded to be enough evidence for proof. The # of times the experiment and results are reproduced, seems to be relative to the degree of evidence. Even within this scientific type of evidence, there still seems to be no specific parameters for quantity of reproductions, and degree of accuracy of measurements within the experiments or observations, which is required to be evidence. It is all a range of degrees of evidence, and perhaps is still up to subjective interpretation for how strong of evidence is illustrated, based on # of experiments, and accuracy of measurements. 

Logical evidence seems to be similar to general evidence, since it strongly requires subjective interpretation. It involves, more specifically, concepts (perhaps rather than observations or statistics) of cause and effect which are relevant to the proposition. Understanding of the incorporation of more concepts of function, is likely to be involved, but the process of understanding, still involves individual interpretation (which is a best estimate).

Anecdotal evidence is information of an experience, relayed by someone. Similarly, the validity and accuracy of that information of experience, requires interpretation.

In general, that which is considered to be evidence, seems to be on a broad scale of degree of applicability. Information which can be considered to indicate a proposition, even to the slightest degree, could potentially be considered evidence. Whether information is in the form of; data of experiments, interaction of relative concepts, or stated experience, it seems to require interpretation and agreement of parties involved, using a best estimate for the degree of which it supports the proposition. But in all, applicability and accuracy is open to interpretation, of this proposed; Evidence of Evidence.