什么组成了充分的证据？
决定什么时候你的证据，或者你正在评估某人意见的证据是否充足，一点也不容易。在做决定时，你将不得不同时考虑证据的数量和质量。不存在简单的方案，但是这些一般性的指南将帮助你判定具体的情况：
1.当证据可以肯定地推导出判断，那它就是充分的。愿望，假设或假装判断是正确的不等同于确定性。当没有好的理由怀疑，没有争论的根据时，确定性就存在了。比如，刑事审判定罪标准是“疑罪从无”。确定性是非常难以符合的标准，特别是有争议的议题，通常你会被迫选择一个更缓和的标准。
2.如果无法获得确定性，那么议题的一个观点显示出最大的可能性，证据就是充分的。意思是问题中的观点相比其他竞争观点明显地更合理。在民事法庭上，这个标准表达为“证据数量占优。”当然，论证合理性和几乎可以断言有很大差别，并且在任何一个观点能被确定最合理前，所有可能的观点都必须识别并评估。
3.在所有其他案例中，证据必须认为是不充分的。换句话说，如果这个证据没有没有体现出某个观点比竞争性观点更合理，谨慎的行动方向是撤回判断，直到有充足的证据。这样的克制可能很困难，特别是当你偏好某个特别的观点，但是克制是批判性思维者的一个重要特征。
原文：
What Constitutes Sufficient Evidence?
It is seldom easy to decide when your evidence, or that of the person whose opinion you are evaluating, is sufficient. In making your determination you will have to consider both the quantity and the quality of the evidence. No simple formula exists, but these general guidelines will help you decide particular cases:
Evidence is sufficient when it permits a judgment to be made with certainty. Wishing, assuming, or pretending that a judgment is correct does not constitute certainty. Certainty exists when there is no good reason for doubt, no basis for dispute. The standard for conviction in a criminal trial, for example, is “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Certainty is a very difficult standard to meet, especially in controversial issues, so generally you will be forced to settle for a more modest standard.
If certainty is unattainable, evidence is sufficient if one view of the issue has been shown to have the force of probability. This means that the view in question is demonstrably more reasonable than any competing view. In civil court cases this standard is expressed as “a preponderance of the evidence.” Demonstrating reasonableness is, of course, very different from merely asserting it, and all possible views must be identified and evaluated before any one view can be established as most reasonable.
In all other cases, the evidence must be considered insufficient. In other words, if the evidence does not show one view to be more reasonable than competing views, the only prudent course of action is to withhold judgment until sufficient evidence is available. Such restraint can be difficult, especially when you favor a particular view, but restraint is an important characteristic of the critical thinker.
