Just in case anyone believes Buzsaw's characterization of my views on evidence of the supernatural in his Message 17, my actual position on scientific evidence is that it be empirical. Real events, natural or otherwise, leave behind evidence apparent to our senses.
As I've explained before, Buzsaw's restriction from the science forums is because it became the pattern that science threads in which in he participated eventually became dominated by exchanges consisting of, in effect, "Buz, you've presented no evidence," followed by, "Yes, I have," and the eventual decline into the equivalent of "Have not", "Have to".
Buz is not actually required to change his views on evidence. What he's required to do is participate in a way that doesn't turn so many of the threads in which he participates into discussions of his views on evidence. Since he was unable to do this himself moderators (me, in this case) addressed the situation.
At EvC Forum, members who have a tendency to turn threads into discussions of the same issue are asked to take discussion of that issue to a single thread. So I asked Buz for a thread proposal to discuss the nature of scientific evidence, but he seems unwilling to work with me through the thread proposal process.
While it warms my heart to see large post counts posted every day, I'll still remind people who would like to discuss science topics with Buz that there *are* other discussion boards out there. Try Evolution Fairy Tale. I like the moderators over there, they seem very well intentioned and informed, plus if I'm going to throw post volume anyone's way it may as well be Fred's.
I would say that one major point of disagreement seems to be the use of critical evaluation of evidence. i.e. is the claim asserted as evidence true, or at least very likely to be true, and does the claimed connection really stand up.
I think you're right. I was hoping that a thread on the nature of scientific evidence would include the importance of assessing relevance, strength, replicability, etc.