t claimed that evidence comprised of the stimulation of an individual’s sensory receptors while another great empiricist named Bertrand Russell states that evidence is sense information, the mental items of one’s consciousness. Additionally, it is also tied closely to the philosophy of science. Unquestionably, the term evidence is barely a philosopher’s word of art. Philosophers are not the only personalities who regularly speak of evidence, but also judges, lawyers, scientists, historians, and reporters speak of it often. Therefore, the notion of evidence is stronger on a pre-theoretical ground than several other notions that enjoy similar fundamental standings within philosophy. If one relates philosophical explanations of evidence with the manner the notion is often used in non-philosophical notions, a confusion comes up. For instance, if you see how the non-philosophers like the historians, forensic scientists, and archeologists, among others term evidence their perception is quite different from that of the philosophers. Therefore evidence is based on belief (Kelly, 15).
Reality can have a more complicated and fluid explanation than we might understand. Rather than being a tangible ability to view black and white dissimilarities concerning ideas and establishing beliefs on external evidence, an individual’s idea of reality can accommodate opposing beliefs, reject, and disregard truth when suitable, or embrace ideas seemingly outrageous in a sane biosphere. A postmodern work of falsehood permits for the changing and shifting of reality, hence providing the audience an alternative reality to associate the alleged truth outside the work. According to Winston, the reality is something impartial, external, and existing in its particular right, the nature of truth is self-evident. However, Kant challenges Winston idea and states the idea of reality is all in the human mind. Kant illustrated a strong distinction concerning our perceptions of reality and the