Scientific evidence is evidence that is meant to help a scientific theory or counter against a proposed theory. It's supposed to be hard near-irrefutable evidence, fully documented, to not come under suspicion of being faked.

Good scientific evidence, that's fully been documented by the scientific method, should be believed.
Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

Permalink | Report

If you are looking at scientific evidence, you really have to look hard at how the study was done to determine the quality of the evidence. In popular usage, "evidence" is used interchangeably with "conclusions" from studies. A conclusion isn't technically the same thing as evidence, which could be the bits of data that are then interpreted.

When looking at a study, it's important to look at things like sample size; who/what makes up the control group (or if there even was a control group/sample); length the study ran; basic assumptions made; how the study was interpreted; where the study was published (peer reviewed publication or not); and who funded it. Any one of these factors being of poor quality can skew the findings of the study, and then your "evidence" is really not worth much.

If you wonder about a lot of scientific or technical things, it's worthwhile to audit a course on statistics or a science course that covers these topics. The OpenCourse free university courses from MIT are a good way to do this, but your local community continuing education facility can also be a source for you.
Source(s):
My own B.A. and M.A. courses covered this topic

Permalink | Report

Evidence:

A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.

Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.

Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.

In Law Scientific Evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.

"Good evidence" in science has to do with the credibility of facts and the theories that try to explain them.

So in science or as science progresses there are facts that are recognized as truth and so there are no doubts about them.
Source(s):
http://www.answers.com/evidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence_(law)
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen01/gen01706.htm

Permalink | Report

Good "scientific evidence":
One recent example highlighted in the book is the 2004 fossil discovery in Canada of fish with "intermediate" features -- four finlike legs -- that allowed the creature to pull itself through shallow water onto land. Scientists around the world cite this evidence as an important discovery in identifying the transition from ocean-dwelling creatures to land animals. By understanding and employing the principles of evolution, the discoverers of this fossil focused their search on layers of the Earth that are approximately 375 million years old and in a region that would have been much warmer during that period. Evolution not only best explains the biodiversity on Earth, it also helps scientists predict what they are likely to discover in the future.

Not good "scientific evidence": Deciding T-REX is a Predator or a Scavenger?
Predator Argument
The ocular cavities of Tyrannosaurus are positioned so that the eyes would point forward, like a lion or a human. A scavenger rex would not need the advanced depth perception that stereoscopic vision allows. Stereoscopic vision is essential for predatory animals who catch other animals (owls for example), but has secondary importance for animals who are chased (such as rabbits or deer).
T. rex had an incredibly large and powerful jaw with serrated teeth, one bite could break most anything in half. This was a terrible weapon. Certainly if T. rex was a scavenger, it would not have to be so well armed..
There were also the large powerful legs. Some scientists believe that T. rex could run as fast as 30 miles per hours. This ability would prove very helpful to a predator chasing prey. It was not needed by a scavengers whose meal was already dead and just waiting to be devoured.

Scavenger Argument
Some scientists think that T-Rex didn't chase down its prey at all, but was merely a scavenger. As a scavenger he fed off of already dead animals, killed by old age, disease, or other carnivores,
Paleontologist Jack Horner of the Museum of the Rockies is leading proponent of the theory that T. rex could not have been a predator. He maintains that its eyes were too small to see distant prey; its arms were too small to hold victims; and that is huge legs would have resulted in it moving slowly. He also points out that its large olfactory lobes provided it with an acute sense of smell. Vultures also have large olfactory lobes which they use to smell dead bodies at great distance.
There is no fossil evidence for predation. Bones have been found with tyrannosaur teeth embedded in them or scratched by them, but there is no evidence to show that the animals were not already dead. A bone that showed evidence of a healed tyrannosaur bite would be strong evidence for predation.
Permalink | Report