You said that the first meaning implied that evidence needed to have an “outward, demonstrable” component. I agreed and said:
In other words, explain why you think the first meaning in the definition I gave implies an “outward, demonstrable” component.
Well, as definition 1 is written it’s not all that strongly implied, though the examples lend weak support. It’s probably just my personal bias that makes me assume evidence is generally something that can be experienced with one of the five senses. The only thing I can think of that could be considered non-physical evidence is human emotion upon self-reflection. e.g. “When he thought of her, the stirrings he felt in his heart were evidence enough that he was in love.”
Eh.
I shouldn’t have bothered.
Carry on, if you must.