What do the different disciplines consider sufficient proof for a hypothesis? In some disciplines, the statistical five-percent-threshold in a significance test is applied as the standard, in others this is regarded as completely insufficient. Does one have to observe a phenomenon once, a hundred times, a thousand times to believe it? Or is a plausible chain of reasoning enough? Do philosophers, mathematicians, social scientists, biologists use different measuring sticks? And what about disciplines that do not do any measuring – do they have a "measuring" stick at all? Is the moment in which an inquisitive mind shouts "Eureka!" identical to the one in which a thesis can be proven? And what do philosophers of science think about this?

A fundamental question is how the disciplines should "talk" to each other when "evidence" is defined so differently that a matter of fact could be accepted according to the rules of one discipline but dismissed as insufficient according to the rules of another?

The Research Group Eureka – consisting of philosophers, mathematicians, chemists, biologist and geologists – debated similarities and differences in internal communications within a field and made the implicit evidence criteria of the respective disciplines explicit. Researchers developed fictitious requirement-catalogues for students and drafted a survey for the members of the Junge Akademie.