User:Manuela.Irarraz/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/ Seminar Group 9/Evidence

= Evidence = Evidence is a fact, object or information, which fundamentally supports the justification of a belief or statement. There are many forms, by which it is being collected, generated and presented. For example, it can be a physical item, testimony, observation, set of data, survey, interview.

Defining Evidence
'And when we try to define ‘evidence’ … we find it very difficult.'

—R.G. Collingwood, The Idea of History According to the Oxford Dictionary 'Evidence' is: 'The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.' From this body of facts we as people, institutions and governments make informed decisions.

Evidence is fundamental to any discipline including health-care, the justice system and technology for diagnostics, prison sentences and technological advancement. Evidence can be obtained in many forms and there is often debate about the quality of said forms and their sources: to an economist, Randomised Controlled Trials (RTCs) are considered high quality evidence, whereas observational studies (which are often adopted by social scientists) are considered low quality evidence.

Crucially, in all its forms, the evidence that is presented to the consumer is comprised from a wide variety of sources and so we cannot 'take all evidence on absolute trust'. Yet, it ironically facilitates humanity's relentless pursuit of the truth.

Generation of Evidence
In Science, evidence is generated by research. The employment of research methodology usually depends on the context; and each have their own benefits and limitations to be aware of.

In natural sciences, research tends to use quantitative methods, which are focused on testing a hypothesis. This is executed via RTCs, statistical analysis and database analysis. This methodology can be known as 'Positivist' science (Wikipedia definition: 'philosophical theory stating that certain ("positive") knowledge is based on natural phenomena and their properties and relations. Thus, information derived from sensory experience, interpreted through reason and logic, forms the exclusive source of all certain knowledge.)

  

On the other hand, more so in the social sciences, evidence is generated by qualitative methods such as focus groups, interviews and case studies. The aim is to explore the individual's subjective thoughts and experience: which may generate differing hypotheses rather than testing one. This methodology can be known as the 'Phenomenological Approach' and is defined by the '' 'study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view. The central structure of an experience is its intentionality, its being directed toward something, as it is an experience of or about some object'.''

 

Types of Evidence
In order to face the most complex global issues it is crucial to consider knowledge, research and evidence from all disciplines. Types of evidence can include:


 * Randomised controlled study
 * Case-controlled study
 * Cohort study
 * Survey
 * Qualitative survey
 * Professional/ expert consensus

Each has its own strengths and limitations, and in practice it is important it must be independently observed and verified (Davies et al. 2000) to be used safely and effectively. Researchers should employ both qualitative and quantitive methodologies to compensate for the limitations inevitable within each one. For example, Goldman et al. (46) used the qualitative method of life history interviewing, to 'elucidate the social, cultural, economical, institutional and political elements' on the lives of the working class. Thus, facilitating the development of a quantitative survey.

Another realm entirely, supported by notorious empiricists such as Bertrand Russell, constitutes evidence as sense data: the 'mental items of one's present consciousness'. Later, but in the same way, American philosopher Willard Van Orman Quine strongly believed that evidence consisted of 'the stimulation of one's sensory receptors'.

Theories of Evidence
Disciplines and fields demand different outputs from evidence, therefore different theories about the nature of evidence have transpired.

Evidence as That Which Justifies Belief
This view held by some philosophers is where the evidence we possess is valid in determining our beliefs. Therefore, when our evidence changes, so may our beliefs.

Rational Thinkers Respect Their Evidence
In this thinking, to be rational to one's evidence, allows us to respond appropriately: this is not necessarily responding correctly and our response may change with increasing evidence. Ultimately, it holds that 'being mistaken is not the same as being unreasonable'.

Evidence as a Sign
To put simply, this rejects assumptions as truth, and proposes that we can only believe evidence that we are directly faced with. Meanwhile, choosing to disbelieve what is not supported by evidence we can see.

Objectivity
Finally, evidence can be thought to unify disciplines to generate agreement.

= Evidence in different academic disciplines =

Evidence in Law
The assembly of judges and other legal persons in a court act to 'determine any cause' and work to find the truth in a case.

Both the defendant and the prosecutor will present evidence to prove or to disprove the facts in the case. The court then reaches its decision based only on the evidence presented to it, as according to the English adversarial system of trial, the court cannot actively seek for relevant evidence themselves. Both parties must also consider The Law of Evidence which constitutes what is admissible in court: and so may indirectly exclude relevant evidence, such as that which may be unreliable or may distract the court from the main issue at hand. The reliability of evidence from witnesses must also be questioned, who may be lying or mistaken.

Consequently, it must be noted that the final decision may not 'determine' the exact truth; even if the evidence is inconclusive, the dispute must be settled.

Presentation of evidence in court might ultimately be flawed because it is a human endeavour and naturally there is room for lies, opinions and error. And in the same way, a court's receiving of what is presented, will vary as humanity is not an unanimous race.

Evidence in Anthropology and the Social Sciences
Anthropology employs methods of collecting evidence, a very important one being ethnography. This is a method of fieldwork, that involves detailed, long-term observation of a chosen area of study within a particular society or group within the society. Throughout this process, a qualitative evidence is being collected (e.g. interviews with the members of group/society) in order to describe the specific area of functioning of humans in their social context (e.g. structure of the kinship system, role of rituals, local economy and systems of exchange).

What distinguishes ethnography from other ways of gathering evidence is that the emphasis is put not only on collecting it from the outside, "observer" perspective, but also from becoming a part of the studied community. Thanks to the participation in the everyday life of the society, anthropologists don't gather their data only on the basis of their research questions and hypotheses, but also allow their informants to guide anthropologist into different areas of their life. This can often reveal new, previously undocumented and unexpected areas of study. For example, A. Weiner's initial focus of study in the Triobrian Islands in Papua New Guinea was supposed to be male carvers, but, through the interaction with Triobriand women, she was guided by them to discover their central economic activity (production of skirts and bundles used for mourning ceremonies) and therefore, their significance in the life of their society.

Evidence and Medicine
The term 'evidence' has become implicit in the healthcare system. Evidence-based medicine is known as the employment of the best available evidence to make optimal decisions about the individual care of patients.

Such practice requires a dialogue between clinical expertise and the evidence presented: in evaluating its validity and appropriateness. A common misconception in evidence-based medicine is the absence of this dialogue and the concern that patients are not treated uniquely and exclusively; a kind of 'cookbook' approach, in which the same 'recipe' is followed without taking the individual patient and his maybe slightly differing needs or circumstances into account. Indeed, as the increasing volume of research evidence, the reliability of such evidence can present increased difficulty for practitioners as to what is clinically useful. And at the most extreme level, this could ensue inaccurate diagnosis and the issuing of detrimental medication. But largely, external clinical evidence aids and facilitates, rather than replaces clinical expertise.

Others fear that evidence-based medicine may be exploited by purchasers and managers to cut the costs of healthcare. However, evidence-based medicine is not fundamentally driven to lower costs: practitioners may in fact suggest care that is more expensive, and more efficient.

Issues with Evidence
The Scottish philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre famously wrote "Facts, like telescopes and wigs for gentlemen, are a 17th century invention" (Whose Justice, Which Rationality, p357).

Evidence in Surveillance and Politics
After the horrific events of September 2001 in New York, President Bush signed into law the Patriot Act, under which, it constituted surveillance of suspected terrorists and those suspected of engaging in computer fraud or abuse: which may include wiretaps and searches of business records. One must question whether this sourcing for evidence is ethically sound, thus if it is justified in its effects on 'ordinary' Americans. For example, if an individual's privacy is being violated, they may be completely unaware and innocent.

Recently, Section 215 of the Act (which originally allowed the FBI to order third parties to share personal records) was amended to prevent the National Security Agency from continuing to collect mobile phone data. Instead, phone companies will retain the data and the NSA can obtain information about targeted individuals with permission from a federal court. Even here, we must challenge if such lengths are necessary in evidence sourcing.

Evidence using Artificial Intelligence
There is fear central to the power of Artificial Intelligence: particularly surrounding algorithms and cookies which monitor our daily internet usage, thus what could be created on the back of this evidence. Social media networks like Facebook have unfiltered access to any information posted on it: birthdays; friendships; locations, as well as a user's activity and preferences on a daily basis.

= False evidence = Evidence can be, and sometimes is, fabricated or manipulated before it's being publicly presented, in order to justify a false statement. This is often done in the interests of individuals or particular groups. For example, a false evidence can be created for a court trial in order to defend the person being prosecuted.