What does it mean for there to be evidence of/for something?

“What does it mean for there to be evidence of/for something?”

Evidence means to make evident to a mind by way of phenomenal experience, rational inference, and or existential meaning. This requires that there be universal causal dependency relations between states such that sound inferences can be made about them and thus called evidence.

My metaphysics would predict that there are two (2) types causal dependency relations and thus two (2) fundamental ways to derive evidence.

(1) The “Evidence OF” Inference Type.
“Evidence OF” something is an inference based on ontological unification. These are explanations that come in terms of more simple states that have broader explanatory power. In other words, this method explains a broader range of phenomena by appealing to fewer and increasingly more simple entities.

Example:
Electromagnetism and the weak interaction forces appear very different at low energies. However, to explain the mutual interactive compatibility between the two, the electroweak force is posited as a unification principle, where one (more simple) higher order field is posited to contain the collective explanatory potential of multiple lower order independently identifiable principles.
Sheldon Glashow, Abdus Salam, and Steven Weinberg were awarded the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics for their contributions to the unification of the weak and electromagnetic interaction between elementary particles.

(2) The “Evidence FOR” Inference Type.
“Evidence FOR” something is an inference based on it theoretical predictive capacity. These are explanations that predict a specific outcome based on prior heuristics. Verified predictions provide the basis for navigating the uniformity and regularities found between phenomena with precision and practical utility.

Example:
If I hypothesize that the more salt I add to water, the higher the boiling temperature becomes. I have a specific prediction that can be confirmed or falsified. If testing my hypothesis against a normalizing control confirms the truth of what my hypothesis would predicts, then I can consider my hypothesis as confirmed and reliable for constraining future hypotheses that may presuppose the current results.

Both of these inference types are taken seriously by scientific and philosophical enterprises. Additionally, both are needed because no isolated hypothesis can make predictions alone since they require prior auxiliary assumptions for predictions to be possible, and every independent assumption needs ontological constraints to have identity; such that it, in virtue of its identity, it can causally influence a state of affairs, that is being predicted, to follow from it uniquely. (See the Duhem–Quine thesis)

Now, let’s examine this further. Say we have some Phenomena “P” and some Explanation “E”.

1. Under “Evidence OF” Inference Type,
   *Particulars explained in terms of Universals.
   What it means for P to be “Evidence OF” E is that P fits within the reductionary scope of E. (Phenomenological Reduction)
   P is only possible given E, and would be impossible without E. (Ceteris paribus)

This means that P fosters a set of reductive expectations, to account for its dependence on E.
If we have a P, it would necessitate an E.

-Falsifiability Not Required
-Not Probabilistic
-Non-Naturalistic
-Ectropic (Universal to particular)

1. Under “Evidence FOR” Inference Type
   *Particulars explained in terms of other Particulars.
   What it means for E to be “Evidence FOR” P is that E raises the probability of P. (Empirical Deduction)
   P is more likely given E, Than it would be without E. (Ceteris paribus)

This means that, E fosters a set of predictive expectations, to account for P’s dependence on E. If we have an E we expect a certain outcome.

-Falsifiability Required
-Probability Required
-Naturalism Required
-Entropic (particulars to particular.)

Example:
As a software programmer, you can write functions, define variables, and build commands etc. prior to executing/rendering the information structures in qualitative expression.

“Evidence OF” would describe the instantiation of the information structures I.e. the “Code”.

“Evidence FOR” would describe cycles of uniformity on the already rendered qualitative states, I.e. repeated patterns in code execution.

Notice that, that which instantiates the path of reduction from universal to particular operates on a distinct axis of explanation and would be Meta-Natural. Also notice that “Evidence FOR” mechanisms are not at all possible without the initial activity of “Evidence OF” mechanisms, since uniformity requires patterns of behavior to be first isolated from the set of all possible patterns if they are to be actualized before regularities between them can be deduced.

Note: Evidence for Theism is established under “Evidence OF” inference type.