Hypotheses are either true or not. Justin is either a murderer or not. There is either a God or not.
If statements are either true or false, how can it be the case that certain forms of evidence weakly support a hypothesis and others strongly support a hypothesis? Shouldn’t it be the case that you either have evidence to believe in a hypothesis or you don’t, in a binary sense?
Even in the case of evidence A and B where A includes B, this seems to make no sense. For example, let’s assume that we are trying to figure out if John is a murderer.
A = We found John’s DNA on the body B = We found John’s DNA on the body and we saw a text conversation about how he wants to kill the victim
On the face of it, B seems to be better evidence than A. But before analyzing whether a statement is true, it must first be meaningful. In what sense is B better evidence than A? Sure B may include more items that would be characteristic of John being a murderer, but it would only make a difference if the additional reasons warrant a belief that John is the murderer.
But as mentioned before, you either have enough evidence to warrant a belief or you don’t. If you don’t, how can it make sense to even call the evidence you have weak? If it wasn’t enough for you to believe it, then isn’t it the equivalent as there being no evidence?
20 people saying that a person revived from the dead is no better than 1 person saying that a person revived since neither warrant a belief that he revived due to the exceptional nature of the claim.