The word evidence is used by laymen, scientists and legal experts. Do we all agree it must follow an adjective or it doesn't really have much meaning? I notice, for example, some people like to use the word "good" to denote a category of evidence. I wonder if they are thinking in terms of direct versus circumstantial evidence? Good actually being direct, which is empirical. Does everyone agree with that? Should we just drop the "good" evidence and replace it with empirical unless otherwise stated circumstantial? So, we think of categories of evidence with empirical being associated with direct observation (both legal and scientific). Now, this got me to thinking, why don't we say indirect instead of circumstantial? When we infer mass based on an indirect observation of something we can measure, is this "circumstantial"? It seems almost all things we observe in the lab would then be "circumstantial". But, we don't say this, we say indirect measurements (for example: the indirect method of immunohistochemical staining). Lots of things are indirect. Yet, we still consider these observations empirical. Or is it? Which brings us back to "good". What do you guys think... this being a Science forum and all Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!