User talk:LGreg/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge (LG seminar 2020/21)/Seminar 9/Evidence

Stylistic Edits
It might be a bit premature for stylistic edits, but I’ve capitalized the heading of the first evidence post about EBM to maintain stylistic consistency throughout our user page. Please let me know if this seems like an inappropriate edit.

Lamplight360 (discuss • contribs) 10:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I wasn't sure what style others would be using but it's much better to be consistent throughout! Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 12:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I was also wondering what the other contributors think about retroactively grouping the posts by subject matter (i.e. Scientific disciplines in one group, etc.)

Lamplight360 (discuss • contribs) 10:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I think this is a great idea - we can do this once everyone has contributed. Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 12:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I had thought about this. I think this would be an interesting way of formatting it but I would reject a formatting style which requires you to click any more hyperlinks. I think if we're going to group by meta-discipline we should keep them on one page and use larger headings.
 * 5050clown (discuss • contribs) 12:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * That's a good point and I agree with what you've said, we don't want to overcomplicate it by adding too many hyperlinks. Using larger headings would be a good alternative, while also making it clear which disciplines have been grouped together. If people are in agreement, we could do this at the end, but please do comment if anyone else has any other ideas that we can consider. Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 12:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on Linguistics portion
I have just finished my sandbox section on linguistics. I thought I'd start a new discussion topic on this in case any discussion wants to be made in relation to my section, as I feel like organisation of the discussion page in this format will be more effective.

5050clown (discuss • contribs) 12:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Your section is really well written and is really concise and easy to read - it's a great addition to the sandbox! Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 06:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you! --5050clown (discuss • contribs) 01:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I like this section too - it's well researched and informative. I hope you don't mind but I added in a definition of what Inuktitut is and also what aphasia is - these are not common words and therefore I felt more definition for the untrained mind would help.Tsarina Catarina (discuss • contribs) 13:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I included a small reference to Saussure and Lévi-Strauss, who both looked at linguistics from an anthropological point of view. I felt they reinforced your argument. Tsarina Catarina (discuss • contribs) 10:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Repeat Referencing
Do any of you know how to indicate repeated references? The bibliography is filled with repeated references/citations (many of them from my own contributions!) Hithertoundreamt (discuss • contribs) 22:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I read the Wikibooks guidance again, and I think the best thing to do is to use the 'named reference' feature when citing, and then when you want to cite the same source again, the process is much quicker and easier. Here's a link which explains it in more detail:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Repeated_citations


 * If you go to your own personal draft sandbox, there will be a 'cite' option. If you cite your work using this, there's an option called 'Ref Name'. if you give your reference a name, there's then the option to automatically add the same reference from the toolbar. Would then copy and paste the reference into the seminar sandbox, as the cite option isn't available in the seminar sandbox. I hope that helps! Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 07:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! I'll have a look at the link and try to correct the repetition (in the History section as well!) Hithertoundreamt (discuss • contribs) 01:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Existing & Suggested changes to 'Conflicts with Evidence in EBM (Medicine)' section
I have changed a few intensifiers such as the use of "really" to make the text more descriptive rather than opinion-based, changed a few word choices such as "huge" and contractions like "it's" to fit tonally with the excellent research discussed, and made a few minor formatting changes in terms of spacing and apostrophes. Please do review these if you think they change the meaning of your text.

Apart from this, I was wondering if there are sources for the final few statements made in the 'Conclusion' subsection? Some of the statements were quite strong and absolute, such as "evidence is never factual", which I have edited slightly to "evidence is rarely entirely objective and factual", but the last few statements as a whole can come across as opinions as opposed to descriptions (such as "it is time it stopped being presented as such"), especially since they have not yet been referenced/cited. Once again, please let me know if I have misunderstood/misconstrued your contributions.

Thanks! Hithertoundreamt (discuss • contribs) 23:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your detailed comments and feedback. I really appreciate the removal of the the intensifiers as I was aware when I writing it of the danger of it becoming too opinion based rather than factual, so thank you! It sounds much more objective and impartial now, which is exactly what it should be. That's a very good point about the concluding statement too, and it's something that hadn't occurred to me. I completely agree, so I will go back and have a look at the statements I've made and see where I can add some citations to reduce the level of personal opinion coming across! Thanks again fro your input, I really appreciate it. Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 07:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I have now edited the EBM section, added references and changed the wording of my statements that came across as opinion based rather than objective. Please do let me know if you have any more comments or if there are still things thatI could do to improve it. Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 08:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Glad I could help! Looks amazing now, definitely comes across as objective, and it's well referenced! Hithertoundreamt (discuss • contribs) 01:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I think this is a great topic, thank you for contributing it. As a big follower of alternative methods, and a proponent and educated in one specialism, I have added in a little paragraph about bridging between traditional methods and EBM methods, a big conflict area, if you would like to check it... just in case. Tsarina Catarina (discuss • contribs) 13:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * This was a great addition, thank you for taking the time to add this perspective! I've added a couple more sentences to talk about anecdotal evidence and bring another element of evidence to the paragraph, but it's a great idea to mention alternative medicine with the rise in controversy we're seeing today. Thanks again! Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 04:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on Psychology
I added in a little about Cognitive Psychology as it ties in with Evolutionary Psychology. I put in a couple of references from the words you had already used.

Discussion on French Civil Law
I added a reference to French Civil Law written in English, incase anyone would like to read it! I changed some of the grammar and spellings but again, your written English is fantastic. I hope you don't mind.
 * Not at all, thank you so much ! A.ren01 (discuss • contribs) 19:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on Philosophy
I put Empirisisme into the English Empiricism. I changed the English to read a little better, - you write extremely well in English - but there were just a few elements I changed.

Evidence in Evolutionary Psychology
I was wondering the direction the head writer of this section wanted to go with this. I admittedly have very little knowledge of evolutionary psychology, yet I could provide some useful information about the use of evidence in evolutionary biology. I would like to know your plans for the finished section as I don't want to take it in the wrong direction. --5050clown (discuss • contribs) 01:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the ask and have been contemplating the direction for the rest of the entry as well. I feel as though establishing a base-level knowledge of evolutionary biology would be necessary first, in order to then discuss evidence as it's understood in evolutionary psychology.

Lamplight360 (discuss • contribs) 14:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Evidence in art criticism - sentence help
I was doing some proofreading and I found this sentence in the evidence in art criticism section:

"There are four scales of analysis in order to deliver a conform academic critic"

I'm not sure if this makes syntactical sense, but I also don't fully understand the point the sentence is trying to get across. Could the writer of this section make an amendment, or explain what they mean here and I will have a crack at it.

Thanks! --5050clown (discuss • contribs) 01:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I also found the same sentence and believe I've arrived at a sentence which has some added clarity. Please feel free to give my edit a read and let me know your thoughts.

Lamplight360 (discuss • contribs) 16:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Subheadings
Hi all

Some of our sections have headings, and others don't. I'm not sure if formatting homogeneity is necessary in this task, or if it is recognised that the nature of a collaborative sandbox means that different sections will be put together differently. I would love to hear some thoughts on this. 5050clown (discuss • contribs) 01:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I was thinking about this too - I think would be worth adding headings to all sections for continuity, if other people also agree. Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 04:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Homogeneity is really important here, I think. It presents well and makes it look much more organised - I have tried to do some too, and i think if we see things a little out of sync, we should just do it as it was probably an oversight. Tsarina Catarina (discuss • contribs) 09:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I've added subheadings to the sections that didn't have any already. I tried to summarise the content of each subsection but feel free to have a look and make changes if the headings don't seem appropriate. Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 11:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Final paragraph on evidence in science.
I was trying to neutralise the wording on the final paragraph in the evidence in science section, but there is a sentence which I am struggling to parse:

"Under COVID, Scotland is the only country in the world that has curated the data, which was published in The Lancet [64], but went unreported in the mass media. No other country has produced this, so when the public asks the questions of the politicians, they do not have the data or evidence to justify their policies. "

I am unsure what "the data" is referring to in this instance, could someone shed s light on what they think this refers to so I can finish off the neutralisation? --5050clown (discuss • contribs) 02:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you! The data is number of cases, number of deaths, how these numbers are broken down, into what classification (age brackets), causes of death (Covid or other) Tsarina Catarina (discuss • contribs) 15:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok great, I have amended the sentence. --5050clown (discuss • contribs) 09:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * THUMBS UP! Tsarina Catarina (discuss • contribs) 13:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Evidence in History
I have edited the grammar and language a little on this entry, I hope you don't mind. Just to make it read more easily. I have contributed some more information about the evaluative nature of secondary sources and that primary sources are authoritative and the advantage anthropological studies can add to primary sources. Tsarina Catarina (discuss • contribs) 15:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi was just proof reading this section and saw that some sources weren't cited properly so I took care of that. Hope that helps ! Velma1234567 (discuss • contribs) 13:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC) Velma1234567