User talk:Nicola.georgiou/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/Seminar group 16/ Evidence

Evidence in Law
In the second paragraph from Evaluation of the Use of Evidence, you used the word "obviously" in "Obviously a majority are qualitative evidence", same with "However", "However, witness testimonials are assumed to be". I feel like the wording makes it feel subjective, whereas the paragraphs should be objective. JupiterJoyner (discuss • contribs)

Responding to the point above: Thank you for pointing out that some words could be improved further so that the wording would better reflect the objective nature of content. But so far I have not come up with better alternatives. Please feel free to edit it if you want. Lily0212 (discuss • contribs) 18:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Lily0212, I'll think about some way to rephrase it, but I think I was being too harsh on that aspect since, as a whole, your contribution is objective; I think just the structure makes it seem like an essay more than an actual Wikipedia contribution, but I'm working on that myself too, so I wouldn't worry about it. Anyhow, I like the points you made in your contribution! Well done! :) JupiterJoyner (discuss • contribs)

The evidence of doping in competitive sports and it’s impact on the human body
To the author who wrote this section, I just wanted to let you know that your references are formatted a bit weirdly. Try using the little book with a bookmark symbol (it's in the edit bar), and then type your full Vancouver reference in. It will automatically put your references at the bottom of the sandbox and create a hyperlink to them, as well as automatically number them. Feel free to message me if you need any help with this! Purpledinosaur17 (discuss • contribs) 20:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Evidence in Economics: GDP vs GDH
To the author who wrote this part, I find your topic very interesting! It is so impressive to me that you introduced the less conventional Economics concept, GDH, and the example about it being used as the indicator of Economics performance in Bhutan. The comparison of GDP and GDH inspired me about their different natures as quantitative evidence when they take different factors into measurement.

But I want to point out the definition you gave to GDP. Defining GDP by “the standard for measuring a nation’s productivity” is a bit disputed. Because GDP only considers the work done by all people within the national’s border domestically, it ignores the work done by the country’s citizens overseas which is also regarded as part of nation’s productivity even though being not “domestic”. “A nation’s productivity” is more likely to be reflected from GNP or GNI instead, which is also another evidence widely employed by Economists and governments in the world (GNP/GNI=GDP+net property income from abroad).

Therefore, I think it would be better if we define GDP as the market value of all final goods and services produced by all people within the nation’s border during a specific time (usually one year). Hope this makes sense. Lily0212 (discuss • contribs) 18:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The evidence of doping in competitive sports and it’s impact on the human body
To the author who wrote this section, I find your discussion about how doping is used and its impacts in sports to be very intriguing. I think you can expand further, however, when talking about the different kinds of evidence involved. Besides surveys among athletes about the use of dope, I think you can also mention how evidence is obtained such as urine or blood tests, and how compiling the data can bring forth underlying trends for future anti-doping campaigns. I also then would suggest exploring how evidence can be tampered with by countries or athletes themselves to avoid testing positive such as urine replacement. I think this will bring forth interesting discussions about the validity of evidence within a discipline as well as uncover how evidence is analysed. I hope this makes sense! --Caprithai (discuss • contribs) 02:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Evidence of the Effect of Magic Mushrooms on Mental Disorders
The author of this contribution has described a very interesting concept and I am intrigued to learn more about it. However, I am missing the references for the following part of the text: "This study triggered research at countless other reputable institutions such as John Hopkins University and the University of Toronto.". It would be great if the author could add this reference, because I am unsure if I found the correct articles when I did some research.

Hi! It was quite a pivotal study in the drug-science community, so it's a pretty well-known fact -- I don't remember where I found this fact (I think I read it in a magazine) and figured I didn't need to reference it, as it's not really a statistic/definition, but rather a well known piece of information. Should I delete it?

Evidence in Clinical Psychology: Evidence-Based Practice
I found your section really well written, and liked your comparisons between qualitative and quantitative evidence, as well as how you stressed that collaboration between researchers and clinical psychologists is needed, as the issues are very complex. I think at certain points it might be helpful to include more references. For example, the readers may want to read more work about evidence-based medicine by Gray, Haynes, and Richardson (1996), or about the American Psychological Association's recommendations. I also realised that all your references are at the end of your paragraphs, although I don't know if that was a deliberate choice. I googled it to make sure, and found out that we should cite after each sentence if we are referencing anything.

https://studenthelp.secure.griffith.edu.au/app/answers/detail/a_id/2860/~/can-i-put-one-reference-at-the-end-of-the-paragraph-if-all-my-references-are#:~:text=You%20must%20cite%20every%20time,last%20instance%20of%20the%20paragraph.

Response: Thank you for the feedback! I'm the author who wrote this section and I found different information about references. This article from Wikipedia says we only need to cite at the end of a group of sentences if those sentences are from the same source. Perhaps we can confirm during our seminar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_overkill#:~:text=If%20one%20source%20alone%20supports,sentence%2C%20as%20this%20is%20overkill.

Oh no problem then, sorry. With different referencing styles and preferences, it's always good to check and make sure.

=Cooperative Evidence in the discipline of Physics=

I really liked your contribution on the place of evidence in physics, how you mentioned the shifts in the perception of evidence, as well as how you gave an example of the ways in which empirical and mathematical evidence could work to complement one another. However, I found your endnote suggesting that evidence itself isn't always enough to claim the truth most interesting. When examining the history of science, one observes many changes, paradigm shifts, developments, controversies, and debates on scientific evidence and truth. In philosophy and philosophy of science, empiricism suggests that experience and observation is enough to draw patterns and reach conclusions, while rationalism suggests that experience on its own is not enough to gain knowledge. Does the fact that something has been true for 4.6 billion years mean that it will be true for the next 4.6 billion years to come?

I've found some really interesting sources on such subjects if anyone's interested:

On The Quantum Physics Controversy as it relates to "scientific, philosophical, and even political aspects"

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1025317927440

On "Science controversies past and present" as it relates to environmental crisis

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/PT.3.1295

On philosophy and science

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structure-scientific-theories/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/#:~:text=Rationalists%20claim%20that%20there%20are,all%20our%20concepts%20and%20knowledge.

Evidence in Underwater Archaeology
I really enjoyed reading this -- it was a very niche topic to focus on, and I think that your conveyance of the connection between the physical discovery and the meaning/symbol behind it really resonates with the fundamentals of evidence-based exploration and research, which I believe is very important. ~Beans2002

That is great to hear! I'm really glad that you enjoyed it and that you thought I managed to connect the physical evidence to the meaning behind it. Thank you.