User:SteRos7/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/Seminar 2/Evidence

Evidence in Science
Science is continuously considered to be a highly objective field of study. This reputation comes from the fact that the majority of scientific evidence is quantitative and supported by the critically acclaimed Scientific Method. Evidence is often viewed in relation to Popper’s theory, whereby evidence cannot prove a scientific theory because there may be further information and evidence to be discovered which could disprove that same theory. Few concentrate on the social issues of evidence in Science.

One of these such issues arises in the study of genetics. Each individual will approach genetic evidence from their varied backgrounds and with their own pre-existing values, and intentions. These un-consious biases will then be used to form their own, often polarising, opinions on the given information. This is called motivated reasoning.

One such example is the Oxford Lausanne Collateral Hominid Project which investigated, what they believed to be, organic remains of Yeti’s and other hominid species. In the peer-reviewed scientific paper published by the ‘Proceedings of the Royal Society,’ 36 of 57 hair and teeth samples underwent DNA testing, with mitochondrial DNA being extracted from 30 of the samples. Despite the fact that the majority of samples had originated from common animals (e.g. cows, horses, etc), the researchers managed to identify two samples that matched the mtDNA of Pleistocene polar bears which went extinct over 40,000 years ago. The journal claimed that these two DNA sequences have a '100% match with DNA recovered from a Pleistocene fossil more than 40 000 BP of U. maritimus (polar bear) but not to modern examples of the species'. From the evidence they had gathered, they had come to the following conclusion, without providing an example of the DNA of the Pleistocene fossil or explaining the divergence between the ancient and modern examples of the species. Thus, evidence in science is highly malleable and easy to ‘frame’ – where information is casted in a certain way to influence the opinion of the public. By omitting select information, evidence becomes vulnerable to manipulation, creating the issue of biased scientific fallacies. This is demonstrated through the Hominid project as shortly after a study carried out by the Natural History Museum of Denmark refuted the claim quoted above and argued that the two hairs have a DNA sequence match with ‘Geobank accession no. GU573490 which belongs to a modern U. maritimus individual from Diomede, Little Diomede Island, Alaska'. Though the Hominid Project researchers eventually admitted their error, the project demonstrated the way in which evidence can be significantly impacted by what the researcher or the reader wants to believe. Rather than finding the argument in the evidence, researchers may try to find the evidence for the argument and manipulate it where needed. Thus, evidence in science and genetics is not as factual as one may assume – instead it is vulnerable to issues of motivated reasoning, manipulation, and framing.

Quantitative evidence and Craniometry
Scientific research is traditionally recognised as a wholly objective practice, often based on retrieving accurate and reliable quantitative evidence and then using this evidence to affirm or refute a hypothesis. The use of quantitative data as evidence seems to immediately suggest neutrality. However, even with correct experimental procedure, ‘science is rooted in creative interpretation’. An example of biased evidence in a scientific discipline is in past research in craniometry (the practice of measuring the human skull). Craniometry is particularly relevant because one would assume the study of metrics to be a neutral pursuit, but close analysis highlights how the field was particularly affected by the incorrect use of evidence.

In 1906, Robert Bennett Bean published an article comparing the brains of white and black people through his measurement of the size of the corpus callosum (a large bundle of nerve fibres located below the cerebral cortex; important for communication between the left and right cerebral hemispheres). The data he presented showed a clear trend toward a larger corpus callosum in white people. Bean used these apparent findings in his data to affirm his already established racist beliefs about white superiority. An analysis from Stephen Jay Gould’s ‘Measuring Heads’ highlights flaws in Bean’s evidence: ‘Bean says nothing about the size of the brain itself, the favoured criterion of classical craniometry’. This displays how the selective use of quantitative evidence can skew objectivity. Franklin P. Mall, an american pathologist, saw issue with the clarity of the trend in Bean’s data. He repeated the experiment, attempting to eliminate bias in the methodology e.g. not labelling which were white and black brains before measurement. This alternative method unsurprisingly produced different results. It is important to note that the sample was different but did include 18 brains from Beans original study.

Further commentary by Gould also underlines the importance of the cultural context in determining the way that science is viewed. He puts it well, stating: ‘shall we believe that science is different today simply because we share the cultural context of most practicing scientists and mistake its influence for objective truth?’ This quotation is cause for reflection because it exemplifies the influence of social norms on the way that scientific research is recieved. In the 20th century, there was already a present faith in Bean's theories which meant that his evidence was trusted, despite being objectively weak.

Introduction
The process of prescribing Pharmaceuticals is a complex and difficult to manage process, easily influenced by a multitude of biases. There are several strands that collide in the prescription process. Firstly, the information received by the consumer, through advertising and other sources. Secondly the experiments and trials through which the drugs are produced, the efficacy, risks and benefits assessed, and uses determined. And thirdly, the experience, training, and expertise of the doctors.

Consumer information
The advertising of prescription medication is a highly contentious issue. In the United Kingdom direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) of prescription medication is outlawed. However, since late 1997 DTCA of prescription medication has been leniently regulated in the United States. Between 1996 and 2004 there was a 500% increase in DTCA spending for drug promotion. This spending appears to be highly effective, in 2019 80% of the money spent on prescription and over the counter drugs went to branded products rather than their generic counterparts.

Some studies support the use of DTCA, citing the fear that if consumers do not know about the drugs then they may not get the treatments they need. However, according to an article published in Sage Journals, 75% of doctors take issue with the quality of information contained in the DTCA of medical products. Studies have found that much of the information easily availiable to consumers through advertising and search engines is emotive or anecdotal as well as often misrepresentative of the risk benefit relationship and frequently failing to mention alternative treatments and medications.

Drug assessment process
It takes an average of twelve years and in excess of a billion dollars in the USA to take a drug from the lab to the general public. There are five main stages in the drug development process that have to be successfully completed in sequence. The animal testing phase (pre-clinical research) tests drug toxicity and identifies key information about dosage before moving to human trials. In vivo experimentation is also used to investigate a drugs long term affects using animals with a short life-span (often mice). After animal testing, research moves to clinical trials which consist of phased testing on incrementally larger human cohorts. The drugs are monitored for dosage, safety and efficacy before being released to the general public.

There are some interesting issues emerging from the use of mice for gathering data on drug toxicity and side effects. In comparison to humans and their wild counterparts, laboratory mice have been shown to have excessively long telomeres. This endows them with unrepresentative abilities to recover from bodily and cellular damage. This is one example of how evidence could be misrepresentative in drug testing. Another is implied by a review of studies analysing the dollars per quality assessed life year (QALY) gained. Large variations were found in the median reported cost-effectiveness dependent on the source of funding for the study. Industry-funded studies weighed in at $6000 per QALY, less than half the median value reported by non-industry funded analyses.

Faults such as these in drug assessment can have detrimental effects. In the year 1997-1998 five drugs prescribed to 19.8 million patients were withdrawn from the market due to concern over their side effects. In the case of the diet drug fen-phen, a study found that 30% of people taking the drug had developed specific heart problems only present in 1% of the wider population. Faults in the assessment process aside, the sheer quantity of research into the affects of pharmaceuticles presents an arguably larger problem for the prescription process.

Prescription process
Doctors make difficult decisions when medicating patients, caught between their care for the patient's wellbeing and potential sanctions or lawsuits for under or over-prescription. Several interview based studis of prescription decision making processes found that decisions were affected more by the doctors and their peers anecdotal or qualititive experience, and patients requests than the doctors training or research, it was also found that the doctors often simplified options and risk benefit analysis so as not to overwhelm their patients.

Evidence based prescribing is the use of clinical studies and research by doctors to make decisions in prescription, this is a possible solution to the web of less reliable influences that affect the medication prescribed to patients. However, there is critisism of this method, that physicians lack the time required to explore the vast quantity of information availiable to assess the merits of medications and Kahneman argues that intuitive thinking is an important part of complex decision making, especially under time constraints.

Conclusion
The evidence used to assess pharmaceutical prescription is, on the side of the consumer overly simplified and often misrepresentative, and in the scientific literature overwhelming and sometimes conflicting leading to anecdotal, social and qualitative influences largely taking precedence. Movements to address this have been partially successful. However, with time constraints on consultations and doctors and the complexity, quantity and variability of scientific and empirical evidence available limited progress has been made improving the process, even with the implementation of computer systems to aid decision making. With more time for consultations, better organised clinical records and computer systems, and better regulation on the information supplied to consumers, it may be possible to move towards a more empirically based and scientific process for medicating patients. However, it is against interests of the pharmaceutical industry for these changes to be made, as the premium they can charge for new and or branded drugs is a large source of income.

Evidence in Neurology
Neurology gathers biology and medicine to deal with disorders of the nervous system. The nervous system is composed of the central, peripheral and vegetative system, which provide functions such as sleep, consciousness, language, behavior, memory… The complexity of the brain makes its study complicated and that’s why neurology takes into consideration many different types of approaches to try to converge towards a result.

The study of the brain began with an anatomical approach, based on material evidences. Vesalius did many dissections in the Renaissance and for him everything he taught or learned had to come from direct observations. These dissections made it possible to obtain drawings of the different parts of the brain The microscope will then be used to visualize neurons and their arrangements.

The development of neurology also took place through direct contact with the patient and his experience. In the 19th century, Paul Broca observed that two patients who had lost their voice after an accident had a posterior inferior frontal gyrus brain injury. These cases implied that brain functions were localized. Studies to link brain anatomy and patient behaviors and conditions began to emerge.

Today, neurology continues to evolve based on different sources : medical ones (EEG, MRI, Tomography…), cognitive and psychological testing (eg. for Alzheimer’s ), in-depth laboratory study… At the level of scientific evidence, the American Academy of Neurology has categorized them into classes considering the different fields (therapeutic, diagnostic, prognostic, screening…) from a class I (the most reliable one) to class IV. The different classes are based on the number of evidence and their quality (established by high-level studies of evidence, statistics…)

New techniques are used based on medical data (‘’clinical registries, electronic health records, biometric data, patient-reported data, the internet, medical imaging, biomarker data, prospective cohort studies, and large clinical trial’’ )to try to make a diagnosis as objective and fast as possible : it is Computer aided diagnosis (CAD). These new forms of source lead to many questions and debates because a misuse or a computer problem can have serious consequences. Moreover, it may raise the question of the role of the doctor as well as the loss of individuality for the patient.

Introduction
Consciousness is an interdisciplinary mystery that has baffled philosophers, psychologists, neuroscientists, biologists etc. for as long as we can remember. Philosopher Thomas Nagel wrote an extremely influential paper titled “What Is it Like to Be a Bat?”, which explores the issues surrounding consciousness, including the limitations of objective research, the “phenomenological features” of subjective experience, and the meaning associated with our individual identity. In the paper, he famously states that “an organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is something that it is like to be that organism—something it is like for the organism” : an interesting concept to explore, as it involves many different forms of evidence. As David G Myers said “everything psychological is simultaneously biological”, however, many may feel offended at the thought of objectifying something as personal as consciousness.

Objective Evidence
Objective evidence for consciousness is collected from scientific experiments, for example, neuroimaging, that has become increasingly advanced in recent years. Two prominent forms of neuroimaging are structural imaging, which allows us to explore the structure of the brain, and functional imaging, which allows us to examine the electromagnetic or metabolic activity in correlation to specific mental functions in different brain areas. Functional neuroimaging (fMRI), has notably been used to compare patients in altered and normal states of consciousness to infer “readiness and potential to sustain awareness”, two key features of consciousness. The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex has been frequently associated with consciousness. It acts as a response space, involved in higher cognitive tasks such as distributing attention, working memory, and maintaining abstract rules. This evidence, amidst much more, has led many scientists to the conclusion that consciousness is merely a “user illusion”, given rise by exclusively biological processes.

Subjective Evidence
Subjective evidence for consciousness lies mostly in the undeniable fact that we feel separate from the physical biology of our bodies. Benjamin Libet states that considerable evidence exists to affirm that “an intimate and lawful relationship exists between neural processes and conscious experience. But even a complete knowledge of the observable neural processes in the brain of another individual would not in itself tell us what that subject is experiencing or feeling.” Therefore, the study of consciousness relies on the “subject’s introspective report of experience”. Although this report may be done under strict laboratory conditions, a personal account of experience can never be objective, complicating the possibility of a solely objective explanation for consciousness.

Conclusion
Consciousness is a complex topic to tackle. On one hand, we have scientific evidence that points us towards the idea of consciousness being a necessary illusion for society to function, however on the other hand, we have a deep rooted feeling of autonomy, and a fierce sense of self. This clash between objective and subjective evidence, between simplicity and emotion, make it a sensitive, but fascinating area of research.

Introduction
Dreams have been the subject of numerous studies for generations. They are as much the passion of the greatest researchers as they are of simple people like all of us for curiosity. Finding evidence in dreams is hard because it concerns the unconscious of the brain system. However, different disciplines have found different approaches to study and interpret them.

Primary and secondary evidence
There are two types of evidence: the primary and the secondary.

The primary evidence forms the basis of all research on dreams because they all must include the testimonies of people who dream. Primary evidence is key in interpreting dreams. Interpreting dreams has been the work of many philosophers and psychologists. Sigmund Freud, for example, at the beginning of the 20th century who provides empirical evidence to the study through observation and experiences on his patients. One of the most famous technique he used was called “free association”. He encouraged his patients to link small parts of their dreams to real events or people of their lives. Thanks to all the results he got from them, he could better understand what he was particularly interested in, the unconscious of the brain system. The papers and researches he published are considered secondary evidences because they are the conclusions he drew from his research and experiences on the subject.

Furthermore, primary evidence could also be found thanks to the scientific study of dreams called oneirology that looks at the quantitative process of dreams. This discipline originated at the beginning of the 19th century but has really taken off since 1952 when the regular cycles were discovered by Nathaniel Kleitman and his students. In 1953, the discovery of the REM sleep (Rapid Eye Movement) accelerated laboratory dream research. They discovered that it is in this sleep phase that we dream the most because the muscle tone in the human’s body is particularly low. Thanks to the use of EEG and other modern techniques of brain imaging, oneirology provides evidences that could be linked to neurologic studies. Indeed, the images obtained help understand the different parts of the brain system which is a key part of neurosciences.

Moreover, between 1965 and 1980, quantitative studies of non-lab dream reports have shown recurring patterns in the dreams of very different people. These quantitative studies are really important and relevant because as many researchers have insisted on, we can’t only build a study on verbal reports like Freud did. When someone describes their dream, it is the memory they have of it and not the experience they had while dreaming. Their description could be influenced by a lot of factors and he may forget important parts of the dream.

Conclusion
Finding evidence for studying dreams is a non-ending process of new discoveries in different disciplines. The neurological evidences show the activation and deactivation of different parts of the brain during the sleep to understand how dreams work while the oral evidences help build an interpretation of them.

Evidence in Sociology
A discipline regroups a collection of multiple types of evidence that coexist and are linked with each other. As a matter of fact, evidence can be seen through multiple forms, that can be considered as primary and secondary. Primary evidence is an original source that can be a manuscript or a journal, and secondary evidence   comes from secondary sources, that can be an indirect recording of events. The type of evidence can vary depending on the discipline and the fieldwork, and within primary and secondary evidence exist quantitative and qualitative approaches, that shape the way in which we see what a discipline is based on. Qualitative evidence is defined as something that can’t be measured and is usually found within a humanitarian field, whereas something quantitative is linked with numbers and measuring. Generally, qualitative research is considered more subjective, and quantitative more objective.

If we take sociology as an example we can identify multiple types of evidence that can be used to support research or a cause. As a matter of fact, some proof can be more effective than others, and in that sense, having a combination of evidence is essential to construct a good study. For example, anecdotal evidence can be weak, because of its secondary and insufficient character as it is usually based on a person’s capacity to tell a story and therefore can’t fully support a claim. On the other side, strong evidence can be based on a person’s ability to convey detailed observations and examinations, and knowing the way in which this information was acquired strengthens its plausible nature and is known as testimonial evidence. Moreover, in sociology it is important to have a database of evidence known as statistical evidence, that can be seen in the form of experiments and analysis of data which strongly supports an argument as it is based on primary proof that can’t be disputed. Lastly, comparing and contrasting the evidence we have, with original facts from researchers can permit us to understand the evolution of social and economical concepts through a different lens and therefore can extend our knowledge on a specific matter, this is known as analogical evidence.

Introduction
Forensic evidence is used in court to investigate the suspects of crimes. It includes the use of scientific methods to support legal cases. Therefore, it introduces an interdisciplinary approach to law practices. It emphasizes how only through the use of interdisciplinarity, complex world problems can be solved. Forensic evidence is used in the investigation of sexual assaults. It requires a holistic approach, combining biological, documentary, and psychological pieces of evidence.

Biological Evidence
Biological evidence can prove whether a sexual assault took place. It is crucial and used to define the identity of the offenders. It is based on quantitative data and the scientific method. This type of evidence is commonly obtained with the use of the Sexual Assault Kit (SAK) by Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners. Moreover, a toxicology report is a useful tool to help define alcohol consumption or drug intake by the victim. If the loss of consciousness is present, toxicologic testing can prove a lack of consent and thus support the rape accusations. DNA evidence is considered the most reliable out of all forms of forensic evidence. That emphasizes how the development of science can support human lives and has an active application in law. Sperm and epithelial cells need to be investigated to determine the genetic profiles of the victim and the offender.

One of the limitations of biological evidence is that DNA should be collected within 72 hours after the sexual assault. The collection and investigation of DNA samples are demanding and time-consuming. Moreover, the investigators need to carefully identify the collected evidence. Any error caused by a human or the scientific method can have an impact on the result of the case. Furthermore, DNA testing is less reliable when an offender uses masks, gloves or condoms. These items limit the presence of the rapist's DNA on the victim's body. .

Documentary Evidence
Biological evidence is often supported by documentary evidence. The scene of the crime should be protected and carefully investigated. Surface areas and various objects can be later transported to the laboratory, tested, and used as biological evidence. The documentary evidence can help investigate if the sexual act was consensual or not.

Psychological Evidence
The psychological approach uses qualitative methods and takes into consideration the mental wellbeing of the victims. Sexual assault is a traumatic experience, and the investigation can be emotionally demanding for the aggrieved. Prosecutors acknowledge that victims may feel ashamed or embarrassed and thus conceal parts of the sexual assault. Medical interviews are useful tools to determine the type of sexual assault and the victim’s perspective. Moreover, witness trials are used to obtain additional evidence.

Limitations and Strengths
For many years, the Criminal Justice community has been dependent on DNA and biological evidence in proving sexual assault cases. However, the need for DNA to be tested so soon after the assault, and the increasing ways in which rapists are avoiding leaving their DNA, has meant that more reliance must be placed on documentary and psychological evidence. Toxicology reports, digital forensics (e.g. text messages, emails, etc.) and pattern evidence (e.g. handwriting, tire marks, etc.) are all examples of non-DNA evidence that can prove crucial in a sexual assault investigation. The limitation of these types of evidence is that they can only suggest a potential outcome and most prosecutors will refuse to carry forward a case without substantial biological evidence. .

Conclusion
The use of forensic evidence requires biological, documentary, and psychological approaches. Moreover, this interdisciplinarity needs to be applied in the investigation of victims, offenders, and the scene of the crime. The sum of all this evidence is used to determine whether the victim's accusations are true and the sexual act was not consensual. Interdisciplinarity allows us to alter the investigation for a specific case. It is essential to acknowledge that every case of a sexual assault is unique and requires a different set of evidence.

Introduction
Law can be defined as the system of rules of a particular country, group, or area of activity. Of course, law doesn’t have the same rules depending on where you are, but it always relies on the notion of justice. This term of justice is quite interesting for our subject because it is supposed to be based on evidences. In fact, evidences are the most important element that compose law and justice. This omnipresence has created over the year a controversial debate about different types of evidences.

Admissible evidences in lawsuits
Focusing on lawsuits, producing factual evidence is the best way for a party to establish proof. For the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, three categories compose this type of evidences that can be defined as “objects of sensory evidence”. We talk about oral evidence, documentary evidence, and real evidence. Oral evidence refers to a testimony while a documentary evidence is a document presented to the court and finally real evidences are everything other than a document like a knife or a gun.

Controversial evidences in lawsuits
Now that we have talked about un-rejectable evidences and the importance of factual proof, we can focus on the other side which represents evidences that are less likely to be admissible because they are less sufficient. In fact, other standards of proof raise controversial debate. For example, when we talk about the new theory about mathematical probabilities. The many paradoxes raised by a probability approach based on mathematical theories made these evidences difficult to be admissible. We can say that the evidence needs to be tangible, relevant and reliable in order to be admissible by the judge.

Conclusion
To conclude, we can say that law is about bringing justice, but justice needs evidences to be fair and partial. It is also for this reason that evidences are in the middle of an important debate on which one are admissible.

Evidence in Cartography
Evidence can be defined as the available body of facts indicating whether a hypothesis or proposition is true or false. For every different type of evidence (observation, calculations, statements) we need to verify the validity of the facts that support it. The methods to verify the truthfulness of the facts varies between disciplines. For example, in history, when someone uses a historian’s work as evidence, we need to verify his past works, their objectivity and reliability (hence the importance of referencing) - While in a scientific experiment, we intend to analyze the independent, dependent and control variables to confirm the results. However, there are many cases in the past where the evidence could not be verified and was refuted decades or centuries later. This is the case for cartography, the long historical process of creating valid maps of the earth.

The first maps appeared thousands of years before the creation of satellites in 1957, and we can therefore ask ourselves what evidence did cartographers use to defend their versions of maps? The first attempt of accurately mapping the earth, was made in the second century A.D by Claudius Ptolemy ; however, because it was impossible to travel around the world in his era, his evidence for mapping consisted of documents detailing the locations of towns and tales of travelers. Furthermore, some cartographers added decorative figures to the maps the hide its “emptiness” caused by the lack of information. Even though nowadays we would analyze the source of the documents and the reliability of the tales Ptolemy based his work on, the ancient Greeks did not have enough knowledge to refute or validate the map. We can therefore see an example where evidence used in a work could not be proved or countered until centuries later, showing the importance of finding reliable quantitative and qualitative evidence. It is thanks to inventions such as the Global Positioning System in 1973 that allowed cartography to become a purely factual discipline as the evidence was based on mathematical calculations. Before the arrival of the GPS, cartographers could not refute the works from previous centuries as they did not have the necessary tools to create totally reliable maps either.

Evidence in Film Studies and Criticism
The concept of evidence in film studies can be seen as a grey area as films entail both subjective and objective aspects, meaning purely quantifying them (as film rankings do) can be open to controversy. Quantifying qualitative data like this means that you lose the personal emotional response someone can have with the film as each viewing can be seen as an individual subjective experience

Objective Film Analysis
As well as the issue of quantifying one's emotional response to a film, there comes the matter of the politics of a film contradicting the films aesthetics. Can a film critic put aside their personal political views and opinions in order to objectively review the aesthetics of a film? And does a film have to align with the moral philosophies of the critic to be deemed as good? It's because of these questions that complete objective film criticism is unattainable, for similar reasons as to why completely quantifying qualitative evidence is also unrealistic and has its loses. .

The role of the Film Critic
Although in a perfect world being able to objectively analyse and criticise films seems idealistic, the role of the film critic is not to give an unemotional, objective response but to draw on their personal 'professional' knowledge and experiences, and supply evidence for their viewpoint; essentially providing quantitive evidence for their qualitative response. This evidence could be in relation to plot; themes and tone; acting; cinematography; production design; score; direction; editing etc. . A successful film analysis will aid the audience to understand the more subtle nuances in a film that they may have previously missed, whilst giving their own take on it, exemplifying the importance of film criticism for the viewing experience as a whole