Philosophy Versus Science

[Belacqua]

One can apply the term evidence to just about anything, so please clarify with at least one example of what it is you think constitutes evidence, that is beyond the remit of science to examine?

The video clips on YouTube constitute good evidence that I would not enjoy the new Superman movie very much. 

Is this the sort of thing you're asking about? To me, it seems like 1) evidence, and 2) not scientific. But perhaps you're looking for something different. 

Earlier, I said that 

"Evidence is any observation (whether taken through scientific experiment or not), or subjective experience, or testimony, or tradition, which increases the credibility of a proposition." 

Did I say somewhere that all evidence must be within "the remit of science to examine"? 

Here is what I wrote before:

Here are you claiming that "science" and the "natural realm" are contiguous? That is, in your view anything in the "natural realm" is something science can have evidence for? 

I'm not sure if that's true or not. 

I wouldn't want to be in the position of begging the question: "everything that science has found is natural, therefore everything that's natural is found by science. Therefore only natural things exist." 

Here I'm pointing out that by limiting science to the study of nature, we do not prove that there is nothing outside nature. Notice that I said I'm not sure what the best conclusion is. I do not know whether there are things outside of nature. 

One of the problems is that the word "nature" is quite hard to define. It used to have a clear meaning long ago, but has drifted. Is mathematics part of nature? Is art? Are ethics? I don't know. 

If you think that because science has only addressed natural things, that we can therefore conclude that only natural things exist, you are taking a philosophical position. It is a reasonable position held by many people. 

Science is a process which observes strict rules. Many of the observations we make in life, which provide us with evidence, are not made according to the scientific method. For example, the number of cars in the parking lot indicate to me that the restaurant is good. This is evidence (not proof). But it is not scientific, because it isn't done in a controlled test with repeatable falsifiable results. For example, the word "good," when applied to a restaurant, is not clearly defined. 

My subjective experience of watching movies provides me with evidence about which new movies I will enjoy. I don't think this is scientific, yet it is evidence. 

The testimony of others provides evidence (not proof) as to whether a university professor teaches well or badly. This is evidence, but is not scientific.

These are examples of unscientific evidence which may increase the credibility of propositions.