User:Nicola.georgiou/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/Seminar group 4/Evidence

Evidence

Definition of evidence:

"1)Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.

2)Evidence is the information which is used in a court of law to try to prove something. Evidence is obtained from documents, objects, or witnesses."

Evidence, Bell, Swensen-Wright and Tybjerg

There are several forms of evidence and each disciplines uses different kinds of evidence -it could be a document, statistics, a way of reasoning... The book is divided in eight chapters. Each of them talks about the relation between evidence in a specific discipline. For example, in chapter two, C. Ginzburg presents evidence in history and how it could be ambiguous and need to be contextualised. Another chapter focuses on the relationship between statistics and law and how these two disciplines deal with incomplete evidence. I decided to read in more detail "Evidence for life beyond Earth" and "Evidence for religious faith : a red herring".

"Evidence for Life Beyond Earth"

Extraterrestrial life used to be a matter of science fiction, however, by recent discoveries, it is also a greater focus of science. There are two reasons for that: the development of scientific instruments (better telescopes) which provide more detailed and accurate research and the discovery of micro-organisms which are able to live in environments, previously thought as completely inhospitable. For now, scientists have not found "extant life beyond Earth" but the research continues. The first step is to define what is life. There are different definitions ; M. M. Grady has defined life "as an information system capable of inheritance, adaptation and evolution". Then, scientists need to determine what kind of evidence they should look at. After understanding the conditions necessary for the development of life (carbon-based and water environment) and the evolution of life on Earth, they try to predict where life might have appeared.

"Evidence for Religious Faith : a Red Herring"

Until now, there is no rational evidence of the existence of God. In pre-modern society, it was acknowledged that there were two ways to reach the truth : mythos and logos. They were considered as incomplete and complementary. Sometimes, there was a confusion between the two. In fact, all religions tried to justify their beliefs with logos. One example is the Islamic Empire, during the 8th and 9th centuries, where a movement called Falsafah "tried to make the religion of the Koran a rational faith". K. Armstrong illustrates this wish with eating soup with a fork : despite the fact that forks are useful, it is not the right utensil for eating the soup. The author asks herself: does religion need to prove the existence of God? According to her, faith's aim is to raise questions and to take actions (whether ritual or ethical actions).

In addition, religion is according to author simply a different kind of reality that we cannot "prove" by looking for evidences in our own reality. Religion through history has been changing constantly as a respond to a changing society - but its main purpose was always in a way trying to explain the unexplained phenomena from our real world - weather being one example among many. However, with scientific research, providing evidence for such phenomena, religion was forced to retreat from such matters to a certain degree. However, as for the matter of god, or the life after death, science might never be able to provide sufficient evidence, so the religion will keep filling this void of ultimate truth that we cannot reach by looking for rational evidence. What is more, evidences, as objective as they seem, are always a subject of subjective interpretation. One example is how religious people interpret differently Darwin's evolution theory, or are able to provide relgious justification for it. As well as evidences so is religion subject to wide interpretation - not only we have different religion and different branches within one religion, we have also very different practcies of religion, interpretation of it, etc. As author pointed out - evidences for religion simply cannot be found in our reality, and as her analogy with fork and soup illustrate - they do not need to be found. Religion cannot be and does not need to be proven, since its purpose, its function remains nevertheless - filling the void of our understanding, filling the gap of the absolute truth that arguably will remain unreachable.

Sources:

Armstrong K, et al. Evidence for Religious Faith: a Red Herring." Evidence. 2008; 19: p174.

Lecture Summary

The issue lecture today was very insightful into two different approaches to evidence. From the social sciences standpoint, contextless data is meaningless. Moreover, data is not merely a synonym for evidence. Evidence only exists when there is an argument, example or opinion. A true merit of interdisciplinary is its breadth to integrate and accumulate different types of research within a research project. In this way, qualitative and quantitive research philosophies work best in tandem: the examples raised were Positivism and Interpretivism and used to evaluate Durkheim’s On Sucide theory.

By vast contrast, the two dominate schools of statistical evidence in the face of uncertain logic present a radical logical bind. Frequentist make their predictions on patterns in given evidence, which puts them at risk of consistency bias in their inability to modify their theory in light of the emerging knowledge. Alternatively, Bayesian thinking celebrates bringing prior knowledge to a situation and using the evidence in this way to add to the existing pool of knowledge - again a risk of this approach is that biases may be riddles within the experiment conducted.

Definitions from the lecture

Evidence depends on data, it only exists when there is a hypothesis, an opinion or an example. It comes from the Latin word “evidentia” which means proof. Evidence is used to back up knowledge, to give context to a situation. However, data cannot be used by itself, it always requires context, as for the accurate interpretation of it.

There are many sources of evidence, such as social sciences, the analysis of people, theories… Evidence can come from texts, images, artefacts, songs…

Evidence in medical research and medical policy

Most medical research is peer assessed before being published as research in academic journals. This is to make sure that the data was collected in a controlled manner, and that the inherent bias in its manipulation to be used as evidence is reduced. Despite having some drawbacks, peer assessment is largely accepted as a positive way of making research evidence-based, rather than bias-based.

There are dangers in manipulating data to use as evidence to support a prior idea or bias, especially when there is a power imbalance between ‘academia’ and the general public. An infamous example of using false evidence is a study by Dr Andrew Wakefield, where he claimed that MMR vaccination caused Autism. It has been continuously found to be a false claim, as a result of several paths of misconduct, including alteration of evidence. Despite the paper being withdrawn and labeled as inaccurate, fraudulent, the consequences were wide ranging - for example, many children were not vaccinated due to fear of autism, which lead to unnecessary and fatal outbreaks of measles, mumps and rubella. After being proven as false, Andrew Wakefield's work has since been completely discredited and he has been struck off as a doctor in the UK.

This brings the question of how false evidence is treated in different disciplines. Jeremy Hunt, UK Public Health Secretary, did not consult medical staff when he proposed cuts to the NHS system. When it was clear that privatising the NHS was an unsafe option for many people with lower income in Britain, he did not look at the evidence in favour of keeping a nation healthy, but instead at the evidence that privatisation would grant the government more money. An interview of a junior doctor who stated: "As doctors, we practice evidence based medicine and politics should be evidence based too; and yet the health outcomes from his policy changes show that [cuts and policy changes] don't work, and [Boris Johnson] is too scared to talk to medical staff... about the reality of those cuts.’

Jeremy Hunt still has the power and the authority as an MP, despite being found to deliberately misuse evidence. Why are there different standards of use of evidence in different parts of public health?

Godlee, F., Smith, J. and Marcovitch, H. (2011). Wakefield's article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent. BMJ, 342 (jan05 1), pp.c7452-c7452.

Horbach, S.P.J.M.(.S., Halffman, W.(.W. The changing forms and expectations of peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev 3, 8 (2018)

Oliver, D. (2016). David Oliver: Lies, damned lies, and the NHS. BMJ, p.i4093.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/mmr-vaccine/

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/may/22/hospitals-struggling-to-afford-new-equipment-after-nhs-budget-cuts

https://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.i1133

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/may/22/hospitals-struggling-to-afford-new-equipment-after-nhs-budget-cuts

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/01/nhs-jeremy-hunt-junior-doctors-strike

Evidence in History

Evidence only exists with a hypotheses/opinion/argument : (using example of photographs)

- shift from a photograph being simply an artefact to becoming evidence of a significant and disputed event

- used to re-evaluate research claims

- the theory chosen will influence direction of research, thus the photograph will be interpreted based on the historian’s own intention - used to support a theory rather than create one

- hierarchy of sources of evidence? Are historical photos valued more for their lack of bias? Unbiased in their pure form but arguably more biased in their use by historians than a written source for example.

A real-life example that was mentioned in the lecture was how the nature of Evidence is disputed and its use in the discipline History - specifically in the case of Holocaust denial.

‘Holocaust denial is an attempt to negate the established facts of the Nazi genocide of European Jewry.’ - quote from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum Website.

The use of the phrase ‘established facts’ suggests that the existence of this historical event is generally recognised and accepted, based on assessment of available evidence, including written sources, photographs and personal anecdotes. Therefore it is generally recognised that there is substantial, if not compelling, evidence to support its existence.

American Historical Association in 1991 stated that there are “No serious historian questions that the Holocaust took place.” This infers that to practice the discipline of History, evidence must be used and assessed in a specific way, using established methods of the discipline.

Case study of trial in London in 2000 - British Historian David Irving found guilty, in the judge’s words, as “his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence”, “treating the historical evidence in a manner which fell far short of the standard to be expected of a conscientious historian… . [He] misrepresented and distorted the evidence which was available to him.”

This illustrates how there must be a widely-held standard for how evidence is interpreted and used to support a theory.

Sources:

Bazyler, Michael. 2017. "Holocaust Denial And The Law". Holocaust, Genocide, And The Law, 183-210. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195395693.003.0007.

Indonesia, palm oil and transnational companies

Indonesia is one of the largest producers of palm oil and suffers from social and environmental issues such as deforestation, over-exploitation of the lands and conflicts over land properties. In order to resolve these issues, the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) has been created in 2004 in which the different stakeholders are represented -palm oil producers, NGOs, food industries... They have implemented a certification system to regulate the exploitation and it is based on auditors who judge if the criteria is met. However, the auditors are financially dependent on the companies, which could influence their judgement, and accept just one kind of proof –documents. It disadvantages the local population because they have a different kind of evidence called “living proof”. For example, trees are a proof of land property (when has the tree been planted and by whom?). NGOs, like Sawit Watch, work on translating this evidence into more conventional ones, recognized by the auditors and companies as the real proof of land ownership. It could be by taking photographs or using GPS.

The article discusses issues in:

- Evidence. In fact, there is a plurality of evidence which have difficulties to coexist and are not considered as equal.

- Power. Indeed, transnational companies control the economy and no regulation stops them from environmental and social disasters. Even with the RSPO, which should answer these issues in Indonesia, they still have a strong influence. There is a second relation of power in the article which is the hierarchy between the proofs of land ownership.

Sources:

A forest of evidence: third-party certification and multiple forms of proof — a case study of oil palm plantations in Indonesia, L. Silva-Castañeda (2011)

Evidence and the Scientific Method

The scientific method uses observation and experiments as Evidence to valid, refine or eliminate a hypothesis.

The scientific method is used to empirically acquire new knowledge theories. The use of the scientific method enabled the rapid development of natural science since the 17th century. The first step in the scientific method is the observation of a phenomenon. Then one elaborates a question based on the observation as well as a hypothesis to respond to that question. The validity of the hypothesis is then tested with an experiment. The results of the experiment can be used to valid the hypothesis, refine it, or eliminate it . In the scientific method, evidence drawn from the experiments tend to be mostly quantitative.

Evidence in Religion and Spiritualism

Evidence – information which is grounds for belief. Data – facts and statistics. This is quantitative evidence and use numbers, characters, symbols. Often seen as objective and therefore valid as a basis of reasoning. Qualitative evidence come from personal experience, environment. Can be very subjective however is less ridged than numbers and facts and can sometimes give more valuable meaning.

Sources of evidence in the arts includes literature, art, film, philosophy, primary sources such as photographs or letters. Sources of evidence in the sciences include original experiments, scholarly writings and models, observation and statistics.

Religion and spiritualism are highly controversial topics yet it arguably has evidence from both art sources and scientific sources. Despite having such variable evidence, there is much speculation on how reliable any of the evidence about it is.

Historically religion and spiritualism has fallen under disciplines such as philosophy and theology. These disciplines traditionally use qualitative and interpretivist evidence such as historical literature and personal accounts. Scientific fields fall short in terms of researching religion and spiritualism due to differing methodologies (more positivist) when conducting research. Concepts which exist in religion such as morality, faith and soul cannot be quantitively measured. They cannot be observed and measured like many other concepts in science and they rely on subjectivity and personal experience. While positivist models are often seen as more legitimate and accurate as evidence, they have their limitations. Equations and statistics cannot accurately measure emotions and perspectives of individuals. This is why the topic of religion and spiritualism creates tensions between disciplines because the evidence used by philosophers or theologists is seldom accepted in the scientific fields.

Reference: Charles J. Fornaciari, Kathy Lund Dean, 1 August 2001, Making the quantum leap: Lessons from physics on studying spirituality and religion in organizations, Journal of Organizational Change Management.

Notes

Evidence in Law

Evidence can be experienced by human being which explain how they felt it as a reality by their senses. However, in law evidence is based on a demonstration of facts that are in that case proved.

There are two different modes of evidence or 'proving' in law : perfect and imperfect evidence. Perfect evidence can be used in every proof systems. These perfect methods can be by the writing, the judicial confession and the decisive oath. They are acceptable every time and obliged the judge to draw the consequences of those procedures. First, literal proofs are those drawn in writing. Then is the authentic act, which is a condition of validity of the contract (such as marriage, mortgage etc.) and a means of proving the existence and the content of the latter.

Imperfect evidence can only be used in a free proof system. Indeed, the judge is able not to consider those proofs as actually relevant. Those evidence are multiple, they may be the testimony, the presumptions of the man, the supplementary oath, the unsigned writings, the extrajudicial confession, and the beginning of proof in writing.

Evidence in an anthropological approach to photography

I believe that it is interesting to look at evidence through an anthropological approach to photography. Indeed, photographs are material objects that depict something that happened behind the camera (except for the use of photoshop). They can tell us a lot about identity and social relations. For instance, photographs can be a way of self expression or even a way to show our “desired-self” rather than our “true-self”. With the use of props, performance, angles, filters or even photoshop, anyone can use photography to become somebody else. This is interesting as it can tell us something about the person that words can not express. Moreover, photography is evidence of social relations. Indeed, family portraits can be evidence of strong bonds and loving memories. Photographs are also evidence of the past. For instance, they were used to justify racism. Scientists would compare different portraits in order to create a hierarchy. They now serve as evidence of racism and power in the past. They can also serve as evidence in political contexts such as war and demonstrations. However, photographs can not always be trusted as some are staged or altered. Therefore, we have to be careful when using photography as evidence in anthropology.

Evidence in the Nestle Water Scandal

The Nestle water scandal is just one example of many where evidence is an issue when the disciplines of business, ecology/forestry/other disciplines concerned with nature, and law as enforced by the government come in conflict. Across the USA and Canada, the company has bought rights to local freshwater sources in order to bottle the water and sell it. It seems questionable that locals of the area purchase bottled water they used to consumer for free as tap water, but this isn't the main issue. People involved in forestry in the areas were streams have been used by Nestle observed the stream nearly vanishing after water extractions from Nestle. In Canada this causes great harm to residents of indigenous reserves.

Evidence is an issue in this example as ecologists and those practicing forestry can offer both quantitative and qualitative scientific evidence showing the harmful effects of extracting too much water from the streams. Data on the water levels decreasing and the effects of this on the nature surrounding the water source should make decisions of officials obvious. However, government officials may often center their decisions around economic factors. Evidence brought by the business may portray the impact of the water extractions as positive, as they increase employment. Furthermore, lobbying plays a great role in situations like this, including donations of the firm made to local communities.

The two different disciplines both produce evidence of the impact of the company having access to these freshwater sources, but the difference in their approaches causes completely different results.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/29/the-fight-over-water-how-nestle-dries-up-us-creeks-to-sell-water-in-plastic-bottles https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/oct/04/ontario-six-nations-nestle-running-water