User talk:LGreg/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge (LG seminar 2020/21)/Seminar 12/Evidence

Hi ! I just wanted to quickly discuss something with the person who worked on EBP in psychology. I worked on Evidence Based Medicine and EBP in general and found that it actually takes into account the critical expertise of the medical team. So depending on the way we analyze EBP, the issues you talked about (for ex. the individuality of the case) could in fact be solved in a way that is similar to the point you raised on your conclusion.

Hi, I worked on EBP in psychology and just found what you wrote. EBP is mostly based on a generalized solution from a lot of clinical trials from what I read. That's why I believe we should mix the two forms of therapy to give the individualization. What do you mean by "depending on the way we analyze EBP"?

Basc0024 (discuss • contribs) 21:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi again ! I mean that depending if we see EPB as a mix of clinical results and expertise and not only as a collect of clinical results, we won't have the problem you exposed but I think our researches diverged and and give really 2 interpretations of EPB so I don't think there is a "right" one ! Basc0024 (discuss • contribs)

Hi again Hplover101, I just wanted to tell you that I think you need to edit your references in a Vancouver style. Hope it helped !

Basc0024 (discuss • contribs)

Hello, to the person who wrote about Evidence in Sociology - I really liked your text and found the topic you chose very interesting! I read up on it a little and found an article that talked a bit more about the interviews used for qualitative evidence, so I added a few sentences about it to your text, I hope that's okay! Undercoveraustrian (discuss • contribs) 12:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Undercoveraustrian

Hi! To whoever did Evidence-Based Medicine, I think that’s an excellent choice of topic, since it’s so varied and medicine is also a rapidly changing field. It is also very strongly evidence based to ensure a good patient outcome. I thought it might be worthwhile to add a portion about how that evidence is collected and verified to make sure that the practice really will yield positive results, so I added a small section at the end. I hope that's ok, please let me know if you have any comments or stuff to add! Dyinghouseplant (discuss • contribs) 01:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi ! Thank you for your contribution, that's actually really important yes I agree ! Basc0024 (discuss • contribs)

addition for history of art
Hi, to the person that worked on evidence in History of art, I love what you wrote and as I was also interested in the subject I thought I could also take a look into this subject. I found a really interesting chapter from a book on the evidence of omission in history of art. indeed, the author is stating that sometimes we look to much on what we can extract from a work of art and we could also focus on the interpretation that people make out of it and how we usually follow someone's interpretation that might not even be true. The chapter is truly interesting so I am putting in here if you want to read it and I will add something about it on your page. [https://books.openedition.org/uop/1083 Romba, K. 2005. 15 – The Evidence of Omission in Art History’s Texts. In Keshen, J., & Perrier, S. (Eds.), Building New Bridges - Bâtir de nouveaux ponts : Sources, Methods and Interdisciplinarity - Sources, méthodes et interdisciplinarité. Les Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa | University of Ottawa Press. Tiré de http://books.openedition.org/uop/1083]

--Uclqesm

Thank you, I'll definitely look into it! Undercoveraustrian (discuss • contribs) 12:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Undercoveraustrian

Economics
Hi, I hope it's okay for me to add a little piece about behavioral economics to the econ part. I've wanted to write my own chapter about it, but since there is one already I've just added my part:)

-- Hey that's great, it was super interesting!

Economics 2
Hello to the person who wrote about evidence in econ! While reading, I found that the part on "issues with economic theories" could use some examples : I was thinking of Irving Fisher, a great economist of the 20th century who predicted a stock market boom, right before the Crash of 1929. He said: “Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau (…) I expect to see the stock market a good deal higher within a few months." And a few days later, the stock market crashed... I'll just give you my reference right here: "Richardson G. Stock Market Crash of 1929 | Federal Reserve History [Internet]. Federalreservehistory.org. 2020 [cited 3 November 2020]. Available from: https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/stock_market_crash_of_1929"

16:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Uclqrdi

I just thought of another example: the economist Ravi Batra claimed that in the 1990s a great depression would have occurred. However, it never happened! He even wrote a book about it: « Batra R. The great depression of 1990. New York: Dell; 1988. » What’s even more surprising is that the 1990s was in fact a period of relative stability and strong economic growth, with the US stock market growing at an 18 percent annualized rate. "American economic policy in the 1990s. Choice Reviews Online. 2002;40(02):40-1023-40-1023."

Uclqrdi (discuss • contribs) 16:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Uclqrdi

Suggestion for evidence in climate change
I found your contribution very interesting however, I felt that there is a slight lack of context regarding the need to prove climate change in its modern context. The origins paragraph provided me with new insight but I felt that the jump between the historical aspect and the need to prove the existence of climate change was a bit too drastic. Perhaps you could include a few sentences about the controversy of climate change in contemporary debates and why it needs to be proven. For example you could add a few sentences along the lines of: "Climate change is an important world issue in our modern context. An increased production of greenhouse gases has lead to rising temperatures across the globe, melting sea ices and changes in weather. According to NASA atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by 47% since the beginning of the industrial revolution, . Despite these facts, the debate on climate change, and the role of humans in accelerating it, is a heated one. As surpising as it sounds..." This is only a suggestion, do whatever you like with it!

Hi! I totally agree with you, but I was going to talk about it in the part "climate change in politics" but it definitely makes more sense to add it and talk about it before. Thank you for your insight it is really appreciated! Uclqrdi (discuss • contribs) 19:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Uclqrdi