Hi Jon,
Exactly.
Notice that the evidence set is not necessarily a complete one, nor that the conclusion is necessarily valid - validation comes through further evidence ... and a lack of contradictory evidence.
The earth seen from space is evidence that the earth is roundish (an oblate spheroid), which contradicts and invalidates the flat earth conclusion.
In turn we see that assuming a flat plane for the surface portion covered by the map is a good approximation of the surface due to the size of the earth and the large radius of curvature compared to the scale of the map. Surveyors still approximate the surface as relative to a flat plane due to the small error introduced at normal survey scales and the additional difficulty of using spherical geometry.
So, can one thing by itself constitute evidence? I would almost think it could be evidence, if of nothing else, of its own existence.
It certainly is evidence of a possibility if nothing more, usable until more evidence comes along.
Or is it that we must also contain additional evidence to conclude such, for example, the knowledge that things we sense exist?
Additional evidence serves to make the conclusion stronger ... if it doesn't invalidate the conclusion.
You can form conclusions on subsets of information - cherry picking is common - but the validity is tested against all the available evidence.
Enjoy.
™ Version 4.2