Re: "Scientific" evidence
> If it's not "scientific", it's not real evidence.
Er no, evidence is not the same thing as proof. Before devising an experiment, one states a hypothesis. How the hypothesis is arrived at - it might be a mere hunch - should be irrelevant since it is the following experiment that matters (or in reality, ideally, the further experiments that establish replicability).
So, it is natural that there is mere 'evidence', and then there is 'evidence that has been subjected to the scientific method'.
So, I have * evidence* that some of the 5G protesters are also climate protesters - seeing the same faces in both groups, seeing both Anti 5G and Extinction Rebellion posters in the same house windows etc, but it is true that my evidence is anecdotal. However, it is enough evidence to form a hypothesis that I can then go on to test.