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

General
Ideas for the order of the page this time, perhaps moving from the more general to the more specific, or moving from the natural sciences end of the spectrum to the humanities again? --Oliveoilandgarlic (discuss • contribs) 13:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I agree with you! We should do maybe an order that has some sense for example: The article on 'Consciousness' before the 'Study of Dreams'. We could put the 'Evidence in Neurology' after these two previous ones as they support it with more information?
 * Tell me what you think!
 * --Qenalcu (discuss • contribs) 10:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, how about this for an order:


 * 1	Evidence in Consciousness
 * 2	Evidence in the Study of Dreams
 * 3	Evidence in Neurology
 * 4	Forensic Evidence: Investigation of Sexual Assaults
 * 5	Evidence in Science
 * 6	Issues and evidence in the prescription of pharmaceutical drugs
 * 7	Evidence in sociology
 * 8	Evidence in cartography


 * Or the reverse of the above order, I'm not sure how the more social science based articles are best fitted in, as I've put it it moves from the philosophical to the natural sciences and then away from them into the social sciences. What does everyone think?
 * --Oliveoilandgarlic (discuss • contribs) 11:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes perefect! Thanks.--Qenalcu (discuss • contribs) 11:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi! After a few weeks, we can see new contributions and there is a need to fit them in somewhere. I would try to keed the order "from sciences to humanities" throughout our sandbox.

Therefore, I do not know if it is not too late, but I would suggest this order:


 * 1) Evidence in Mathematics
 * 2) Issues of Evidence in the Prescription of Pharmaceutical drugs
 * 3) Evidence in Neurology
 * 4) Evidence in Science
 * 5) Evidence in cartography
 * 6) Forensic Evidence: Investigation of Sexual Assaults
 * 7) Evidence in Consciousness
 * 8) Evidence in the Study of Dreams
 * 9) Evidence in law
 * 10) Evidence in sociology

Let me know what you think.

Good order however I would suggest that sociology is more of a social science than law which is more of a pure humanity so would argue that they should be swapped in order. I have done my section on Evidence in Film Studies and Criticism so would put that right at the end as it's humanities edging towards the arts and probably the least science based of the bunch. I'll swap the law and sociology round now if that's ok with everyone Apricotptr (discuss • contribs) 16:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Looking now I can see the orders a bit messed up so if we want to keep it as beginning from sciences to humanities can i suggest this order:


 * 1) Evidence in Science
 * 2) Evidence in the Prescription of Pharmaceutical drugs
 * 3) Evidence in Neurology
 * 4) Evidence in Consciousness
 * 5) Evidence in the Study of Dreams
 * 6) Evidence in Sociology
 * 7) Forensic Evidence: Investigation of Sexual Assault
 * 8) Evidence in Law
 * 9) Evidence in Cartography
 * 10) Evidence in Film Studies and Criticism Apricotptr (discuss • contribs) 16:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Evidence in Science

 * A comment on your arguement about the biases of genecists - I would argue that you need more than two peices of anacdotal evidence to back up the claim that 'each individual approaches the evidence with their own backgrounds, values and intentions and use these to then form their own, often polarising, opinions on the given information'. I would argue that the majority of genetic scientists, and even scientists engaged in human genetics, which do very often have issues with political biases, are able to conduct research scientificcally without their personal biases getting in the way, and that most biased work would be filtered out by the peer review process.
 * What do you think @Driedmangoes
 * --Oliveoilandgarlic (discuss • contribs) 18:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Evidence in Sociology
Your argument is very universal and could be applied to any other field of social sciences. The first, introductory paragraph is too long and mentions general points, relevant but not essential for your work. It is a good idea to investigate evidence in sociology, however, you could write more about the specific types of evidence and define them into qualitative or quantitative evidence. Moreover, you have no citations. It is useful to add the sources that you have used.

I found a few sources that could be helpful to develop your point:
 * https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/43929447/Qvalitative_Research_Sociology2.pdf?1458506771=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DQualitative_Research_in_Sociology.pdf&Expires=1603715988&Signature=K7Kb7F34hf~wl4his8obbRgPE4pTCfdBqf4jXDKR95VyIgGArqFnX1ddXiNmO8XJm6nf3eoMNjgl2r0IA3O9XXpvRgYF97gzzdChSTenBfVj7asaNLFf3vFDnTgQkToL7s7UTfFNb9G7Kr~6rMmX5PKLKoOtkqfUG4-MWY9ZBx7H~aZzoVgTrMPA2n4UQC3~y1l1sPMUQkTfqU7sfiuTYXCPsTLwP5-5dsBmowD6l-GRqmjDRYgEk-MhANxBA6qPUaZYDAX53k8nwMpFrB7UU0SkAf6vRgp8qTC7Q8WvftHHEvJChZGV6yrhzkOARLAYBJ56JCBC4vKQgGf595qovQ__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA
 * http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/17
 * https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12108-008-9042-1
 * https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0038038596030003010

I hope it helps.

--Grammaloretoo (discuss • contribs) 11:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Evidence in Cartography
I also find it interesting to talk about the fact that some people are voluntarily moving away from this desire to create the most realistic and objective map possible. This new type of map is called a “subjective map” and is made by residents who want to create a map that looks like how they perceive their city or region. They can be based on impressions, myths in the region, a personal perception of a place… More generally, since a map is partly abstract, one may wonder whether it is completely objective at some point. Its author choose what he will make appear or not, the colors choose may have an influence on how the reader will perceive certain places etc.

There is a book about it if anyone is interested : http://descomp.scripts.mit.edu/www/_main_dir_link/images_projects/takehiko_01/xiaoji_map/xioji_seeing_differently_small_final.pdf

--Write&Leave (discuss • contribs) 19:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Forensic Evidence: Investigation of Sexual Assaults
I would like to add that the extensive use of forensic evidence when investigating sexual assaults has created a lot of controversy in the last months, especially in France. Indeed, on the 14th of October 2020, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme court of appeal has decided that in order for a sexual assault to be considered a rape the penetration needs reach a certain depth, intensity and duration. However, to obtain these details about the assault, forensic evidence is needed. This decision has caused high amounts of controversy and therefore shows us that the extensive use of forensic evidence in cases of sexual assault is now creating debate as some argue there are now too many biological requirements for a sexual assault to be considered rape.

The article that details this criminal case can be found on this link, however, it is in french. https://entreleslignesentrelesmots.blog/2020/11/06/un-viol-vaginal-doit-etre-suffisamment-profond-ou-quand-la-cour-de-cassation-marche-sur-la-tete/