Consistent Evidence
Jones distinguishes testing a hypothesis against contrary evidence from presenting evidence in its favor. Both matter: an explanation should address alternatives and show why the supporting evidence is informative.
THE IDEA
A Consoling Word About Consistent Evidence
Consistent evidence is, of course, vital in the presentation of one’s analytic findings. One could not sensibly champion a particular hypothesis solely on the ground that there is less inconsistent evidence for it than for the alternatives. Indeed, it is the search for consistent evidence—the reasons favoring something—that usually drives our analysis. To make a compelling case for a hypothesis, we must naturally offer positive, supporting evidence—that is, consistent evidence.
Take “The Bakery” problem, for example. On the basis of inconsistent evidence, Stewart eliminated all of the hypotheses save one: defective flour. But to make her case to the management that the flour was indeed defective and the cause of the overbaking, she had to prove it, that is, present evidence consistent with this hypothesis. This demonstrates very well that, in problem solving, inconsistent evidence plays the key role during the analytic phase while consistent evidence plays the key role in the summation and presentation phase.
Evidence can fit several hypotheses. Consistency alone does not prove one, and presenting a conclusion should still disclose relevant contrary evidence and uncertainty.
When to use it
Presenting findings with supporting evidence, relevant contrary observations, and the reasons alternatives were rejected.
Scientific research: reporting how observations support a hypothesis and where competing explanations remain possible.
Legal argumentation: building a case with positive evidence after using inconsistent evidence to eliminate alternative suspects.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
The Bakery Problem
In Jones’s Bakery example, Stewart eliminates alternatives and then presents supporting evidence that defective flour caused overbaking. The brief account illustrates the two roles of evidence but does not supply the tests or results needed to evaluate that causal conclusion.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
How can you effectively use consistent evidence to make a compelling case for your hypothesis?
In what scenarios might you over-rely on consistent evidence and ignore inconsistent evidence?
How does the balance of consistent and inconsistent evidence shift between the analysis and presentation phases of problem solving?
Often confused with
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- The Thinkers Toolkit by Morgan D Jones