User:Evarenon/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/Seminar Group 3/Evidence

What is an evidence? What is a better evidence?
A "better" evidence is one that is more precise, provides with more robust estimates and answers questions that other methods were not designed or ill-designed to address, like for example meta-analysis in medicine (Lau, Ioannidis and Schmid, 1998). Evarenon (discuss • contribs) 17:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Over the course of history, the concept of evidence has changed from a looser concept in which personal views were accepted as evidence into a much more evidence-based, concrete and reproducible studies approach. The latter does not refer to individual subjective opinions but rather to what the community of scientists accept as rigorous studies and evidence (Schaffer, 1992). The article also touches upon how social power and hierarchy used to influence who could and who could not provide with evidence so that "the vulgar could not be trusted to know themselves". Schaffer (1992) explores the historical self-experimentation of scientists to form a body of evidence that is somehow more trustworthy and holds greater moral authority. Evarenon (discuss • contribs) 17:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Nutley, Powell and Davies (2013) argue that the extent to which evidence is considered as valid considered depends on the context in which the evidence is used. The quality of evidence thus relies upon the context, what information the evidence provides and the reason we wish to include the evidence.

How much evidence is enough... in a trial? in sciences?
In criminal trials, there is a debate on whether evidences based on novel scientific methods (vs. ones based on established and accepted scientific methods), can be taken into account in the trial (Frye rule). Moenssens (1984) argued that the Frye rule should be abandoned and that the law community needs to re-think its procedure to determine the admissibility of evidences based on scientific experiences. Since 1993, courts have been debating on whether following the Frye rule or its rival, the Daubert rule, according to which the admissibility of evidence relies on the judiciary community acceptance, rather than on the scientific community acceptance (Cheng and Yoon, 2005). Cheng and Yoon (2005) have demonstrated that, in practice, the use of one rule or the other did not make any significant difference in the US trials' outcomes. Evarenon (discuss • contribs) 17:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

How to produce reliable evidence? What are evidence-based disciplines (ex: medicine, education, management...)?
Evidence based research is one that places the results of a new study in the context of earlier similar studies. West, King, and al. (2002) argue that the health sector, could reach better decision-making outcomes if it were more evidence-based. Evarenon (discuss • contribs) 17:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

According to Descartes, it is possible for individuals to access to knowledge via rigorous awake introspection. Following a rigorous logic in performing this introspection is sufficient to make its results true, in the highest sense of the term (SEP, 1997). On the other hand, a careful study of Kafka's Metamorphosis shows that one can provide solid evidence about the world by way of metaphors, allegories and symbols. This could be one way, if not the only one, to provide evidence on the "unexplainable" of human conditions, its contradictions and the tension of "irreconcilability between human aspiration and human reality" (Evans, 2013).

Vidal (2014) argues that mixed-methods that is, the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods, generates more solid evidence in social sciences.

Is solid evidence enough to guide "good" decisions?
In medicine, what matters might not be the actual quantity of evidence but rather how this evidence is translated into proper decisions and solutions to collective issues. Using the knowledge translation framework would be a mode efficient way to translate evidence into solutions, according to David, Davis and al. (2002). Alington (2005) develops a similar argument in the field of education. He argues that evidence is not the only factor guiding political decisions so that, despite overwhelming evidence pointing in a direction, political decisions relying on ideology can lead to another direction. He provides with the example of the Reading Recovery intervention, which efficiency is strongly supported by evidence but that has not been expanded. Evarenon (discuss • contribs) 17:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Sackett (1997) also argues that evidence-based medicine, which combines current best evidence, individual clinical expertise and the real situation of patients, into decision-making, is more a advanced, effective and safer method. Pfeffer and Sutton (2005) argue that the adoption of evidence-based management, though often being ignored, can substantially change how managers think and act. As a result, the whole organization would be more effective and perform better.

Simons (2003) would disagree with Alington (2005) argues that the relationship between evidence and policy-making as well as practices can be very complex, affected by relationships, ideologies and professional preferences as much as by evidence. Consequently, the evidence-based approach is by no means a panacea for all.

Our reading list
Seminar group 3 page on evidence