Talk:Incontrovertible evidence

Simple solution: since the phrase is identitcal, this page needs to be expanded to give its meaning and definition in all fileds, Law, Logic and Mathematics. nobs 20:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'm far from convinced that the phrase has any standard meaning at all in logic or math. Even for law, I always assumed it was just something litigators said to impress the jury. That's why I said in VfD that it all needs to be sourced. --Trovatore 07:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the response; not being a lawyer, I don't feel qualified to write the Conclusions of fact or Conclusions of law articles which are on the Requested articles page. Also, Conclusive evidence is another common term that occurs. You may be correct, it does seem to be a common phrase that is used by litigators, prosecutors, police and journalists; it also occurs in other fields were a judicial rendering as not occurred. In Logic, it's the old "If A, then B, A therefore B" etc; in Mathematics, it is "2 + 2 = 4", which is incontroverible. The example drawn from Law are already cited in the article. nobs 15:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

But neither logicians nor mathematicians typically use the phrase "incontrovertible evidence" in describing these inferences. That makes it a neologism, or "original research" in the Wikipedia sense, to write about the term in this way. Unless, of course, you can source it. --Trovatore 16:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

That was corrected yesterday, the reference being to "incontrovetible proof" in Proof Theory. I stand corrected on that. However it is evidence that is the foundation of proof, so we cxan make that clarification. nobs 16:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Proof theorists don't talk about "incontrovertible proof", either. As far as I can tell, you're still just making up phrases and applying them retroactively to various disciplines. (And not that this matters much, but "proof theory" isn't what you think it is. Google on "Gentzen" and "sequent calculus" to get an idea.) --Trovatore 16:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I chimed in on the VfD page, but I in law, the phrase "incontrovertible evidence" is used as the antithesis of "rebuttable evidence." Moreover, an appellate court can overturn a judge, ALJ or jury's determinations of credibly with inconvertible evidence. Sierra Resources, Inc. v. Herman, 213 F.3d 989, 992 (7th Cir. 2000). I never the less question whether this justifies its own article... it seems like this could be dealt with in a subsection of evidence (law). I'm thinking about taking a stab at conclusion of fact and law, but those might also be best handle under the judgment article. Mmmbeer 02:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the examples of a fingerprint in a room, or DNA are very good examples of incontrovertible evidence. Especially the fingerprint can be very easily faked, and DNA tests, also fakeable, are not SO reliable so as to call them incontrovertible.