User:JREverest/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/Seminar group 5/Evidence

Introduction
According to the Oxford English dictionary, the definition of evidence is: 'The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.'

This suggests that evidence is a means of achieving a research, as an example to prove a point. In a way, it is the demonstration that proves that the statement is not purely dogmatic but founded on solid arguments and that therefore it has a validity and is not a lie or a fiction. Like Sherlock Holmes to solve murders, someone who wants to prove that a statements is correct (even true) or not will have to collect different information on the topic, but also will have to hunt for traces, signs, indications that lead him/her not to be caught in a trap. Evidence is the survival line of a researcher: it is what he/she can hold on to in order to continue his/her research. It is the demonstration which is necessary to obtain a result, a conclusion, and is therefore a necessary process of knowledge making.

Evidence is just as important as what is held to be true, because the moment one will doubt the conclusion/the result/ what is supposed to be true, evidence will help one either understand that one is wrong, either make him realize that the search must be gone through again. Keeping evidence is therefore the proof that there are basis and structures to what we believe/we know.

Evidence in Medicine and the Pharmaceutical Industry
Evidence and Clinical Trials


 * Authority is the weakest form of evidence (PhD =/= valid).


 * Headlines declaring a theory can often be misleading as the evidence given in the original research is either observational or not applied to the relevant group e.g. testing for cancer treatment in petri dishes.
 * Assumptions and evidence are often a bad combination within hypothesis testing.
 * Evidence distortion in pharmaceutical industry. Drug to be brought to market is compared to placebo or low dose/excessive dose medication instead of current available alternative.
 * Case study - anti-psychotic drug Haloperidol given in 20mG/day dosage is tested against new drug. New drug which was ineffective brought to market as dosage was excessive and dangerous.
 * Within pharmaceutical trials, negative evidence is often hidden from professionals. This skews opinion and makes drugs look more effective than they are. E.g. reboxetine seemed very efficient but 76% of negative evidence was withheld in trials.
 * Quantitative methods can often be paired with qualitative methods in order to achieve more compelling evidence.
 * Statistics can be utilised to spot missing evidence by interpolating from graphs. The Cochrane group does this.

Evidence and General Medicine

Evidence can come in two forms:


 * 1) Evidence of correlation - based upon statistics
 * 2) Evidence of mechanisms - based upon alternative methods

Often in medicine, evidence is hierarchised. Evidence of correlation is usually preferred over evidence of mechanisms. NICE has created a hierarchical GRADE system for evidence in medicine, categorising evidence into randomised trials (rated high), observational trials (rated low) and all other methods (very low). Grades are increased if evidence is strongly associated or conclusive, whilst they are decreased if the study is inconsistent or the validity is uncertain.

This ranking system is the product of a new branch of medicine called Evidence-Based Practice, which aims to use interdisciplinary methods to make informed decisions which will improve clinical outcomes and thus the general population's health. The integral steps in all EBP models are: problem identification, criticial analysis of evidence, implementation of change to practice and evaluation of the effects of said change.

In clinical trials and scientific hypothesis testing, the burden of proof lies with those who present the information, for example he who writes a scientific paper. In the case that the evidence provided opposes the expected outcome, the evidence will be analysed intensely in order to determine the reason (whether the data was inaccurate, interpreted incorrectly, not sufficient in size or simply if the hypothesis was incorrect). The loop of evidential scrutinisation and hypothesis testing is known as Experimenter's Regress, a term coined by Harry Collins in 1992.

Evidence in philosophy : René Descartes, Meditations : First Meditation

 * Everything that cannot be checked with irrefutable evidence will be considered as false, in order for the philosopher to find what truth are totally impossible to be but into question. Descartes destroys all of his opinions and illusory statements on which they were founded. This is the methodical doubt : he doubts about reality itself : what can prove him that he is indeed real, and that the outside world is real as well ? How does he find evidence about the fact that he is indeed real, if nothing is real anymore and that he doubts of his existence itself ?


 * Descartes creates a an evil god (‘evil demon’) that would have created a mental creature (Descartes) who would have illusions (the exterior world, people, his interiority/existence itself). This is what is called a metaphysical hypothesis : Descartes uses a statement that he knows not to be true in order to create evidence. Since he is the one who created this ‘evil demon’, the only thing to be true is that he created this whole ‘evil demon’. That’s how he deduces the first true statement of his book : I am, I exist, is true every time I think so (I think therefore I am).

This shows that the only way to prove that something is true is to deconstruct every piece of knowledge that one has about the statement one wants to verify as true or false. By doubting every foundation of the statement, one can check what actually builds the statement. Evidence is what proves something to be true or false (or qualify both those options).

Discourse on the Method : Descartes 'creates' a method to make sure a statement is true :


 * The obvious rule : one can only admit to be true what cannot be doubted upon.


 * The Analysis rule : deconstruction of the problem to find smaller problems that can be easily linked to concepts and simple ideas (induction).


 * The Synthesis rule : to build a righteous order of a knowledge, one must start from simple elements that were discovered through analysis and gradually become more precise (deduction).


 * The counting out rule : verifying that nothing was forgotten. One must go through the path undertaken to go from the problem to the answer, and verify that it is complete, continuous and coherent.

Plato, The Republic:
In Plato's philosophy, one cannot separate evidence from truth.

Of course, some philosophers have tackled the issue of what might be true and what evidence might prove something is true long before Descartes: Plato, in his Allegory of the Cave, suggests that the world we live in is full of shadows, superficial beliefs which we take as true statements. Average human beings would therefore live in ignorance, and believe that these shadows (projected on the wall) are real, while, in fact, they are merely puppets whose shadows reflect upon the cave walls beneath thanks to a fire. A philosopher's duty is to make his way out of the cavern by his own initiative: this is scary because all his knowledge is at once challenged. When the philosopher finally makes his way out, he finds the truth (embodied by the Sun).

What one can remember from this allegory is that doubting of what one holds as truth is essential to find the truth. Beliefs, in some way, have nothing to do with knowledge and therefore cannot be mixed. One must conduct one's way to the truth like a scientist: like Descartes, one must start one's experiment without having prejudice about it. Belief is therefore not an evidence, and so are senses (the shadows people see are not real, they are wronged by their view). All evidence is purely intellectual.

This position is highly questionable, since modern philosophy does suggest that there are indeed things which are true, just because we know they are (nevertheless this has no link to belief).

One other thing is to notice in the allegory: the philosopher must go back into the cave to tell others what he saw, even though he knows that most people will not believe him. This is the last part to fully become a philosopher according to Plato. One of the three imperatives in Plato's philosophy is the Truth: there is one truth, pure, that cannot be challenged, but that cannot be known either (the only thing that Socrate knows is that he knows nothing). Nevertheless, the truth is the ultimate goal of any thinker, who has then the duty to tell others. In short, the truth is a duty to Plato.

Evidence in epistemology

 * Evidence in philosophy is inextricably linked to epistemology. In that vein, when we talk of evidence we are essentially talking about justification. Evidence serves to enhance the reasonableness of another.


 * Evidence can be defined as that which justifies belief. A view in philosophy ‘Evidentialism’ holds that what one is justified in believing is entirely determined by one's evidence. This forms a supervenience thesis, according to which normative facts about what one is justified in believing supervene on facts about one's evidence. Thus, according to this theory, any two individuals who possess exactly the same evidence would be equally alike with respect to what they are justified in believing about any given question. Thus, the normative standards we use to judge beliefs determine our view of evidence.

Evidence in the philosophy of science

 * Evidence in the philosophy of science holds a contrary view. It suggests that other factors such as intuition and availability of other alternative solutions can influence one's own account of evidence. According to the Evidentialist thesis, changes in what an individual is justified in believing always reflect changes in her total evidence. How confident a scientist is justified in being that a given hypothesis is true can depend on the space of alternative hypotheses of which she is aware. The mere articulation of a plausible alternative hypothesis can dramatically reduce how likely the original hypothesis is on the available data.


 * A sceptic about knowledge of the external world would maintain that their evidence (understood, perhaps, as the totality of one's present experiences) does not favour their commonsense views about their surroundings over various alternatives that align more closely with worldview view. This causes the chasm between realists and antirealists about whether the kind of evidence available to scientists is ever sufficient to justify belief in theories that quantify over entities that are in principle unobservable to the layman (antirealist) such as electrons or quarks.


 * The Design Hypothesis attributes the unique characteristics that organisms posses to allow them to thrive in their environments to an Intelligent Creator (i.e. God). The Darwinian Hypothesis arose in the nineteenth century has been the main contender of this hypothesis. Both hypotheses account for the facts in question, however, the mere fact that the Design Hypothesis was no longer the only potential explanation in the field tends to erode (to some extent at least) how much credence the Design Hypothesis merits on the basis of the relevant considerations.

== Evidence in educational policy-making ==

Necessity of evidence-based decision-making in education
In the new era, a variety of key factors necessitates effective evidences in education study, including:


 * a stronger emphasis on individualized education
 * complex and various educational environments characterized by cities, regions and countries
 * rapid changes brought by the Internet, new medias and technologies to educational system

How good evidences are produced and validated in educational researches
A range of methodologies has been applied into both quantitative and qualitative researches in educational domain, such as large-scale research about the achievements and outcome of study (e.g. PISA) and case study on previous projects. However, to ensure the depth and width of a quality educational research, capacity-building of teachers (practitioners), researchers and policy makers is essential all along the research for problem recognition, topic selecting, investigation and analysis. Effective evidence means coming from the local level, reflecting the real circumstances and enlightening about better changes. Capacity-building requires:


 * network constructing for better exchange, easier access to information, financial support and efficient management
 * training of techniques and research methods for practitioners and researchers to close their roles
 * beneficial policies for practitioners to take the initiative in innovative researches

Challenges
With the greater commitment to educational researches and assessments, it is necessary but challenging for the researchers to take into consideration all the stakeholders in education (government, educational institutions, teachers, students, parents, HR market) during the process of evidence collection and evaluation.

Translating good evidences into influential policies entails it to bridge the gap between researchers and policy makers.

A question is raised in the discussion of evidence-informed policy-making that whether less "effective" evidences should be filtered before decision-making. In education, a subject that thinks highly of equality and complexity, however, this problem can be even more debatable.

Evidence in the Dreyfus Affair
Evidence in law are crucial to admit a final judgment, as it brings truth and justice to a case. The court base it final sentence on evidence (whether it’s a personal testimony, a document or a material object) because evidences are concrete facts, as opposed to statements by suspects that may be deliberately (or not) distorted.What if the main tool to bring truth is misinterpreted, misleading and affect the final decision (guilty or innocent)?

It is usually the case in law because evidences are subject to interpretation. Even if evidence are concrete and objective, it can be biased by a wrong interpretation. It is illustrated by the Dreyfus Affair but it is the usual in every legal case.

The Dreyfus Affair (1894- 1906) is an example of a miscarriage of justice.

Alfred Dreyfus was an Alsatian French officer during the Third French Republic. He was accused of spying on the French army for the benefit of the Germans and issuing confidential information. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on Devil’s Island.

In this affair, the evidence was interpreted in a special historical and political context which influenced a particular interpretation. People looked at the evidence the way they wanted to understand it, rather than the facts presented.

In this special context, the miscarriage of justice was due to several causes:

Because Alfred Dreyfus was Alsatian (Alsace and Lorraine were part of the German Empire) and a Jewish descent (context of anti-Semitism in France), it reinforced his position as a guilty party in the eye of the public opinion and the jury. The case was made due to a prejudice on the basis of his origins and faith. Alfred Dreyfus was then the perfect victim.

In September 1894, a letter was found in the Germany embassy in Paris stating that confidential French military information was going to be sent to them. The court relates the letter to Dreyfus by analysing the handwriting. It’s a biased verification of evidence. This same letter will later be used to incriminate the real culprit.

At the same time in 1896 the French counter-spying agency discovered that the real traitor was Commander F. Walsin Esterhazy. Nevertheless, the General Staff refused to review the judgment and tried to cover up the case. Evidence was deviated from its meaning and therefore a miscarriage of justice happened. It was a conspiracy between the court of appeal, judges and prosecutors to uphold conviction of the innocent.

Dreyfus was finally proved innocent in 1906 and reinstated in the army.

Different types of evidence in Law
In Law, there are several types of evidence that is used in investigations and in court. Below is a list of some of the most common ones.

Testimonial evidence

Testimonial evidence is one of the most common forms of evidence we see in Law. It is a form of evidence that can be either written or spoken, and it is usually given through affidavits, in a deposition, or in trial under oath. Testimonial evidence is usually offered in court by witnesses as a proof of the truth. Although testimonial evidence is commonly used, the debate on the reliability of it still exists. In Law, witnesses who give spoken or written testimonials are required to swear under oath with the consequence of committing perjury. However, testimonial evidence relies on human memory and thus is subject to bias. How one person recalls and event is going to be different to how another person recalls it. In addition, people can be subject to bias when asked to make a statement about another person's character, if, for example, the person is a close friend or a relative. In this case, the witness called is likely to use his or her own personal experience with the person in question, and thus could be giving a biased opinion or statement, without knowing it. Hence, Testimonial evidence is subjective.

Forensic Evidence

Forensic evidence is a type of evidence gained through scientific methods such as blood tests, DNA tests, autopsy, etc. Forensic evidence in court tends to be very compelling as it is evidence derived by using the scientific method, which is developed from a solid foundation within the scientific community. The scientific method is hard to refute because it is obtained through empirical data that supports or contradicts results relating to a hypothesis or a theory of some sort. Hence, it is one of the most reliable sources of evidence in not only Law but also other disciplines.

Digital Evidence

Digital evidence in law comes in different forms, for example, emails, text messages, instant messages, hard drive files, photos, finance transactions, audio files, video files, etc. The extraction of digital evidence usually requires a certain skillset. There is a level of technical expertise that is required to extract this type of evidence. However, digital evidence can be subject to what is called Evidence Tampering. Evidence tampering is an act in which a person alters, falsifies, or destroys evidence with the intention to interfere in an investigation.

Evidence in Anthropology
The main method that social and cultural anthropologists get their evidence is ethnography. This method raises many issues as to how evidence can be accepted amongst anthropologists. This sometimes leads to anthropologists studying the same cultures and coming to completely different conclusions.For example, two anthropologists, Margaret Mead and Derek Freeman both studied the Samoan society, 40 years apart. At the end of her study, Mead concluded that girls in this society were completely sexualy liberated, that there was no taboo about it. Freeman on the other hand concluded his study by saying that girls were sexually repressed and shamed amongst all the village if they were caught having sexual intercourse. A debate arose from these two conclusions: who was right?

The problem is that, because of the way anthropologists get their data, there is no way to easily determine who was right or wrong for two main reasons:


 * The anthropologist's bias. Although they try to get rid of ethnocentricism, it is impossible to fully get rid of all cultural bias asthe way we were educated will always change the way we perceive things which leads to two anthropologists coming to different conlusions when studying the same society at the same time . Also, anthropological writings are often a 2nd or 3rd interpretation of the culture since only a native can make a 1st person interpretation on their culture, what they are writing is therefore fiction
 * The very nature of ethnography prevents two people from seeing the same things. Since during their fieldwork, anthropologists let the people they study show them their culture. They let them take the lead of their study. But the same events might not happen twice of in the same way. Which means that two anthropologists doing research in the same society but at different will not see the same thing. Therefore, if they are disagreeing, there is no way to know which one's study is wrong since there is no way to go back and check.

Does this mean that anthropologists have to conceive of their view of the world as fudamentaly contestable?

To resolve this issue, anthropologists have to do some cross-cultural comparisons. They can study the influence of other cultures on one particular culture or how the history of the population might have affected the culture. They might also use methods of other disciplines like history, psychology or sociology to generalize their studies. They can try to agree and generalize how some types of events affect and lead to the creation or transformation of cultures.

Evidence in International Relations
International Relations as a discipline is, at least in its core, a highly theoretical field, while evidence is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as "information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid", indicating a certain necessity for a degree of empirical evidence or real-world proof. It is therefore difficult to define what, in terms of IR, would serve as sufficient evidence to a theory, especially because many, such as realism and liberalism, are so directly opposed to each other.

Evidence in Liberal Pacifism  For example, when considering Liberal Pacifism, specifically the idea that libertarian democracies do not, statistically, go to war with each other, many will often cite the study carried out by R. J. Rummel in 1983, which showed that free states are a lot less likely to be involved in conflict than non-free states. Specifically, free states scored 24%, partly free (such as for example Sweden) scored 26%, while non-free states scored a surprising 61%. While this does seem to supply quantitative evidence to support Schumpeter's liberal pacifism, there are many criticisms of both the application of the study and the study itself.

To begin with the study itself, the most obvious criticism is the inherent restrictions imposed on the data; primarily, the time frame and the criteria which would signify a conflict, which lead to the exclusion of such conflict as the Cold War, as well as the Angola intervention and the U.S. war in Nicaragua. Furthermore, when examining the usefulness of the 'evidence' itself, even if the basic premise is accepted, there remains the question the suitability of the study to serve as a justification the theory. Such as in the case of Liberal Pacifism, it is unclear whether liberal states do not engage in conflict due to the monadic explanation, which is that states that democracies are peaceful by nature, or the didactic version, which points out that democracies are only peaceful with regard to each other, but not towards other, non liberal states.

Evidence in international relations can also be derived from interpretation, such as looking at past examples of state organisation, such is used to demonstrate the effectiveness of Liberal Imperialism, where Machiavelli uses states such as Polybius's Rome or Thucydides Athens, both of which were imperial republics, as evidence and as models.

Qualitative vs. Quantitative  Even within international relations, however, there is a discrepancy between paradigms with regard to necessary evidence. Jack Levy identifies rational choice, democratic peace and power balance as such successful IR paradigms. Fur

While some say there is a tendency to prioritise qualitative to quantitative data when approaching IR,, interpretivism can also serve as a valid epistemological tool.

Evidence gathering methodologies, therefore, have a huge impact on shaping the very discipline where the evidence will be applied. An approach to evidence highly criticised by R. Lebow and M. Lichbach is that which is prescribed "Designing Social Enquiry" by King, Keohane and Verba, which is currently a widely read text in the study of IR in the United States. The main issues regarding the text are cited to be the inaccurate characterisation of science as a discipline, as well as undermining the value of qualitative research.

Evidence in Sciences vs. Humanities in general Different disciplines require a different amount or type of of evidence in order to be sufficient and justified. For example, scientific theory primarily focuses on empirical evidence, which is deduced usually by the application of the scientific method, a rigid methodology which puts the 'evidence' through a routine procedure, which is implemented partially to establish the validity of the information. In subject areas such as theoretical physics, the price of insufficient evidence is merely an incorrect hypothesis, while mechanical engineering, for example, requires much more certain evidence in order to justify action, because of its real world application to infrastructure. There is a similar range in the humanities, with areas like philosophy, which carry a relatively vague requirements for evidence, in opposition to those which aid and lead to policy making, such as, on occasion, international relations.

It is interesting to see exactly how differently the many disciplines view evidence, even when looking at the same question. A real life example would be choosing between the effectiveness of either conditional and unconditional cash transfers, where economists and social scientists not only disagree on what would be the most effective solution to poverty, but disagree on the very criteria by which said effectiveness will be judged.

Evidence in Psychology
Evidence in psychology is does not follow the clear-cut path of a dictionary definition. The human brain is a highly complex system and limits in research methodologies result in psychological evidence constantly being refuted, challenged and updated as well as left teeming with uncertainty. Psychology only began in the late 1800s and thus has seen a steady development in its methodology used for evidence and its use of the scientific method, despite this gaps remain that render much doubt present in research. In a field shrouded with so much doubt, evidence that provides grounds for new knowledge and beliefs must hold some of the following important characteristics:


 * Reliability: yields consistent truths across different measures and tests.
 * Intersubjectivity: different people will make sense of and interpret evidence in the same way.
 * Replicability: same or different researchers will yield similar results if experiment done at different time.
 * Robustness: experimental results may be yielded through a wide array of methodolgies.

Furthermore, due to the wide array of methodologies used to gather data in psychology, evidence may results in two forms: causal and correlational, each with its own benefits a limits when understanding psychological phenomena.

Causal Evidence
While the mind is a highly complex system that makes it difficult to reach certainty in understanding psychological processes, as psychology has developed and applied the qualitative methods of the natural sciences research has been able to provide evidence in terms of causation into various phenomena. This is most often realized when studying the physical brain and physiological progresses relating to brain function as this allows researchers to record data in the form of physical quantitive measurements. Some of the most common causal evidence comes from research dealing with location of function, neurotransmission, hormones or genetics. Some examples of research includes: Maguire et Al (2000) used brain imaging technology to find evidence that the posterior hippocampus is highly involved in visual-spatial memory as they found that London cab drivers showed increased volume in this area compared to a control group, or the Wedekind et Al (1995) study that found evidence for genetic component to mate selection as women selected mates with dissimilar MHC-type (thus, increasing immunity of potential offspring). Causal evidence has done much to unpack some of the processes and functions of the physical brain and has helped bring about clear evidence that reaches the even realms of psychiatry and treatment.

Correlational Evidence
Despite causal evidence being an essential part of evidence in psychology as it has helped us understand the various inter-workings of our physical brain (from the specialized functions of each brain location, to the neurotransmitters interacting at our nerve endings and how these factors affect human behavior), there is much evidence in psychology that can only be gathered in correlation. This most often includes evidence from data gather in natural experimentation, thus lacking the rigorous lab control setting needed to isolate causal evidence, and is often a consequence of the partial phenomena being studied as research into human cognitive processes and human behavior in social or cultural settings (or across societies and cultures) does not stem from direct physical brain processes. Causal evince has show memory as being affected both by neurotransmission and neuroplasticity, however, correlational research has also shown how culture (through schemas) impacts memory as seen in Loftus and Palmer (1974). Correlational evidence often comes in areas where casual evidence cannot be generated and thus is invaluable to expanding the scope and depth of our knowledge into psychological processes.

Triangulation
In psychology, when limitations from different sources of evidence prove to hold too much uncertainty, triangulation is often employed. Triangulation can be seen as the application and combination of several research methodologies in the studying of the same phenomenon, often to obtain confirmation of findings through the overlap / convergence of different perspectives. Triangulation is most important when used in qualitative research as it can combine methodologies to increase the reliability credibility of evidence.

Evidence in History
There is a wide variety of different types of evidence in History. It may come in the form of artifacts, architecture, geographical features, documents, artworks, testimonies, eye witnesses, photographs, etc.

Study case: France after World War 2
Nevertheless, evidence can be used for mischievous purposes, as the example of France after the Second World War shows us:


 * 1) Just after World war 2, the priority for De Gaulle is to unite the country. To do so, he encourages the creation of the 'resistancialist' myth: this myth suggests that most French people spent their time resisting during World War 2, which was of course not the case. In order for the people to believe him, he created many museums of the resistance, and the state sponsored many movies portraying French resistants dying for their nation. They therefore focused the historians' attention on the resistance. There is indeed evidence that the French played an important role in resistance, but there are also many about collaboration, which were nearly hidden, forgotten for decades.
 * 2) In the 1970's, a counter myth is created: 'Le Chagrin et la Pitié', by Marcel Ophüls, is a movie which depicts the French as collaborationists. Minorities claim their rights to testify about their traumatizing experiences during World War 2, such as victims of the Holocaust, 'Malgré nous' (French people who were forced to work for the nazis)... Historians start collecting data and evidence about all those minorities which had been left behind.
 * 3) Birth of Holocaust denial: besides having plenty of evidences in public display, an extreme movement spreads: people deny the Holocaust. Many movies are shot to remind people where the evidence lies.
 * 4) Acknowledgement of France's responsibility in the Holocaust, qualifying of evidences: there were minorities, most French people were in a 'wait-and-see' position, there were resistants.

This example shows that besides having all the evidence in hand, states or people in need to control history (often for their own benefit) can hide evidence, or on the contrary put forward the evidence they want. This is therefore also about interpreting evidence, and collecting from all points of view, qualifying them.

There was also a case of producing false evidence (like in the Dreyfus Case). After World War 2, the French Communist party even created a letter that they anti-dated to 1941 to try to prove their legitimacy to be in power in 1946. Evidence can be manipulated, created, for political purposes as well. One must be careful to always see evidence from all points of view, who benefits from it...