How we score. Carefully applied.
Spiritual Evidence Map is an evidence map, not an oracle. We separate the phenomenon from the interpretation, score eleven sub-criteria, and refuse to fake citations. Scores in V1 are provisional placeholders illustrating the methodology — they will be re-derived from documented sources before publication.
- 01
Score the phenomenon, not the worldview.
We rate the strength of evidence for the underlying observation separately from the metaphysical framework usually attached to it. "Children produce specific verifiable statements about a stranger's life" is one claim. "Souls reincarnate through karmic law" is a different, much bigger claim.
- 02
Measure the leap.
Every claim gets a Speculation score capturing the distance between what the data shows and what's typically inferred from it. A small effect with a careful interpretation can score better than a strong effect attached to a sweeping cosmology.
- 03
Weight by evidence, not popularity.
Volume of investigation contributes to bubble size, not to evidence strength. A widely-marketed practice with no controlled support does not earn a high evidence score for being widely-marketed.
- 04
Worth Taking Seriously is a threshold, not a verdict.
The horizontal line marks claims with enough evidence that dismissing them out of hand is no longer epistemically responsible. It does not mean the metaphysical interpretation is correct.
- 05
Both believers and skeptics misuse evidence.
Believers compress phenomena into worldviews. Skeptics dismiss the strongest cases out of hand because their interpretation would be uncomfortable. Spiritual Evidence Map is allergic to both.
- 06
No fake citations.
Sources live in a curated evidenceItems database and are linked to claims by id. Where real, primary sources are not yet known we leave the claim's sources empty and surface a 'Needs sources' badge — we do not invent DOIs, authors, journals, or URLs.
- 07
Claims can be updated.
Scores are versioned. As evidence accumulates, replication succeeds or fails, or new criticism lands, claims will be re-scored and old scores preserved as history.
Four headline values per claim
Evidence the reported observation is real. May be null if the claim is itself a pure interpretation or worldview-level theory.
Evidence the bigger explanation is correct. May be null if the claim is a pure phenomenon with no specific interpretation attached.
Headline score. Defaults to phenomenon score for phenomenon-type claims, interpretation score otherwise.
Distance between data and conclusion. 0 = tight; 10 = enormous metaphysical leap.
Audit trail under the headline
- 01Evidence strengthHow much evidence exists?
- 02Evidence qualityHow reliable is that evidence?
- 03Documentation qualityWas it recorded prospectively, carefully, independently?
- 04ReplicationHas it been independently repeated?
- 05Alternative explanationsHow well do normal explanations cover it? (10 = covered cleanly, 0 = they fail.)
- 06Scientific acceptanceHow accepted is it by mainstream science?
- 07Cross-cultural consistencyDoes the phenomenon appear across cultures?
- 08Interpretation gapHow far does the conclusion go beyond the evidence?
- 09Philosophical coherenceDoes the claim cohere with strong philosophical reasoning?
- 10Practical usefulnessWould believing this help people live better?
- 11Harm riskCould believing this strongly cause delusion, passivity, or exploitation?
Eight tiers of certainty
- Strongly supportedEvidence ≥ 8, Speculation ≤ 3
- Strongly intriguingEvidence ≥ 7, Speculation 4–6
- Worth taking seriouslyEvidence 6–7, Speculation ≤ 5
- Mixed / controversialEvidence 5–7, Speculation 6–8
- Plausible but speculativeEvidence 4–6, Speculation ≥ 7
- Highly speculativeEvidence 2–4, Speculation ≥ 7
- Weak evidenceEvidence ≤ 3, Speculation ≤ 6
- Mostly unsupportedEvidence ≤ 2