User:TimRJordan/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/2020-21/Seminar group 3/Evidence

Qualitative evidence in Architecture -- a case study of the "Walkie Scorchie" skyscraper

Melted cars, burnt carpets, fried eggs on the asphalt. Those were the consequences of a design flaw in the commercial skyscraper “20 Fenchurch Street”. Located in London’s financial district, the building takes its name from its address on Fenchurch Street. Because of its distinctive shape, it was nicknamed the “Walkie-Talkie", but a series of unfortunate events led to the emergence of a new nickname: the “Walkie Scorchie”.

The flaw in the skyscraper's design

An architect's job is to use their construction knowledge and drawing skills to create designs for construction projects. The design of a building should be functional, safe, sustainable, and aesthetically pleasing. However, that was not exactly the case with the “Walkie-Talkie" skyscraper. Soon after the construction’s completion in the spring of 2014, an incident occurred, which signaled the colossal flaw in the skyscraper’s design. A London resident named Martin Lindsey had parked his Jaguar car on Eastcheap (a street in proximity to the skyscraper) in the afternoon and when he returned to his car two hours later, he found out that some of its parts (namely, the wing mirror and the badge) had melted. Because of the skyscraper’s curved shape, the light and heat from the sun, concentrated on the building’s surface, was reflected directly on Eastcheap street, causing a surge in temperature which had melted the car’s parts. The concentrated light, reflected from the skyscraper, had also scorched the carpet of a beauty salon. Office workers complained about the rising overall temperature on Eastcheap street, especially during lunchtime when they left their offices to grab lunch on the street. Some enthusiasts even managed to successfully fry eggs on the asphalt.

Qualitative evidence in Architecture

The precise reason for the mistake in the skyscraper’s design was never publicly confirmed by the architect, Rafael Vinoly. However, a possible reason could be an insufficient amount of qualitative evidence collected about the surrounding area. While architects are primarily concerned with mathematically accurate drawings of the building’s design, they may sometimes overlook the importance of thorough examination of the area’s qualities, such as the weather patterns, the local landscape (including other buildings and their designs, the presence or lack of vegetation), the social activities undertaken at different times of the day by the residents and workers, the number of parked vehicles, etc. All of those are examples of qualitative evidence that can provide an architect with a better understanding of the local environment (and in the case of “20 Fenchurch Street”, of the temperature and its potential control in the area). Overall, qualitative evidence proves to be crucial for the safety of a building.

Evidence in Cosmetic Science

Cosmetic science is an interdisciplinary field that combines a wide range of disciplines like biochemistry, pharmacology, and marketing together to research on cosmetic products. One of the central goals of this field of study is to develop products successfully in the commercial world. Thus, evidence in cosmetic science mainly focuses on the development of cosmetic products.

As a science discipline, the design of cosmetic products is related to scientific approaches targeting to select the correct ingredients in the formula. However, to meet the needs of customers, the conceptualization of the product is based on market surveys. Some companies choose to post questionnaires to research on the interests of customers, while others rely on product reviews posted on their own or third-party websites. Customer reviews are important for identifying the key features of the planned product as they are personalized, honest, and comprehensive. Companies like Glossier and The Ordinary have also launched short quizzes to help customers personalise their needs for cosmetics products when making purchases. Because most of the reviews are unstructured and are written in different styles, natural language processing applications are also used to classify and summarise the needs of customers, forming secondary evidence. Based on the market survey, cosmetic companies can gain useful information on the functions of the product, price range, and selling points.

In the product design process, active ingredients are chosen to match the needs of customers. Some ingredients are chosen from previous research on similar products. But when there is an incompatibility between different components or when ingredients with new properties are needed, computer-aided design can be used to find new molecules. Screening experiments are needed to select the designed molecules and to identify the concentration of each ingredient in the mixture. Characterizations of the prototype product are based on quantitative data like pH value and viscosity. Animal tests are sometimes used to evaluate the function (e.g. antioxidant activity) and safety of the product, though the usage of animals is banned in many countries. Alternatively, artificial skin and other lab-grown tissues are used as the replacement of animals in product testings.

Other economical and social factors can also act as evidence to influence the development of cosmetic products. Financial analysis needs to be done on the operational feasibility during the manufacturing process. Prices of raw materials, especially the active ingredients, are therefore important evidence for determining the formulation of the final product as companies intend to search for a balance between the investment return and the selling price. Governmental regulations also provide guidance on the prohibited ingredients in cosmetic products, thus affecting the formula.

Evidence and Mathematics

Evidence in Mathematics

Mathematics is an scientific discipline based on the study of numbers and shapes regrouping many branches including Arithmetic, Algebra, Geometry and Trigonometry. Mathematicians use logic while reasoning in demonstrations: every statement is the result of deductive logical thinking that follows theorems that can't be discussed. They seek to find universal patterns that are always true. "1+2=3" is a simple example that everybody knows and would agree with and yet it is an evidence strong enough to be at the base of the discipline.

The mathematical thinking follows a strict objective scientific logic. As soon as a "model" has been proven true, it becomes a "theorem" that can be therefore used for other works. Some materials are sometimes just assumptions, whether it is a new idea or just something that we are currently unable to prove; they are called "conjectures". Some of them are proven right, like the Four Colour Theorem, and some are proven wrong like the Twin prime conjecture. In the case they are found to be nor true neither false, the conjectures enter the so-called mathematical 'axioms' (mathematical statements that are taken to be true but unprovable at the foundation of mathematical theory).

There are many different approaches to the evidence in Mathematics. Some of the methods include: by Direct proof, by Contradiction, by Contraposition, by Construction, by Probabilities and Statistics or even by Computer-assisted proof and many others.

It is therefore logical to assume that Mathematics uses and prefers quantitative evidence. It mainly uses primary evidence but sometimes when referred to a theorem demonstrated by others, for example, it can relate to secondary evidence. This is why Mathematics is so trustable, numbers don't lie.

Mathematical evidence in other disciplines

As said before, mathematics is a subject that can be trusted as a result is or true or false. Since the beginning of human life, we have pursued the understanding of our world and its functioning. Mathematics can be a tool to help many disciplines to find the truth. In fact, every other scientific discipline uses mathematics such as physics, chemistry, biology, geology, computer sciences... Mathematics provides enough material for scientists to use them alongside with their own discipline to provide trustable evidence to prove theories. This is the fundamental evidence. Moreover, it doesn't stop to Sciences, mathematical results, such as statistics, can be used as evidence in many other disciplines such as law, journalism, geography, history and art. Numbers are undeniable evidence.

Mathematical evidence in law

While numbers are undeniable evidence, the context in which they are applied do not always guarantee their usefulness as evidence and can be misleading. In the 1968 American robbery case People v. Collins, mathematical probability was used as evidence to prosecute a couple for robbery. The case goes as such: a witness of a robbery described a pair of robbers as a black male with a beard and mustache and a Caucasian female with a blond ponytail, both of whom were fleeing in a yellow car. A few days later, a couple matching those almost all of these descriptions were arrested and trialed in court. A mathematician testified using the multiplication rule of probability, which states that the probability of independent events happening at the same time is equal to the product of the individual probabilities of each event occurring. By multiplying the individual probabilities of a couple possessing those traits (the probability of black man with beard is 1 in 10, man with mustache is 1 in 4, white woman with pony tail is 1 in 10, white woman with blond hair 1 in 3, yellow motor car is 1 in 10 and interracial couple in car is 1 in 1,000), the mathematician claimed that the probability of any couple possessing the characteristics as described by the witness was 1 in 12 million, so it was highly unlikely the couple arrested were innocent. While the jury found this enough to give a guilty verdict, the court overturned the case due to the flaws in the argument. Firstly, this was a textbook example of prosecutor's fallacy, which incorrectly assumes that the probability that a defendant is guilty is equal to the probability that a random defendant has certain characteristics. In addition, the multiplication law of probability only holds for events that are independent. In this case, they were not as men with beards are more likely to have a mustache.

Evidence in biology

In science in general, evidence is key to backing up all the scientific theories that surround us and try to make sense of all the phenomenons happening everywhere, all the time. But as these theories are only suggested by researchers, they need to be tested to collect evidence. The more evidence collected, by the more different people, the better.

Scientific evidence is used in three main different ways. It can be a link -strongest link being a “cause/consequence” link, allowing for instance to predict the behaviour of a similar event-, a difference -data used as evidence that something isn’t the same as something else (different characteristics/reactions/etc.)- or a change -establishes something’s change within time.

With these results and these different uses of evidence/data, one can solidify a scientific theory or, on the contrary prove it is wrong, generating what is called a paradigm change.

Darwinism

One major example of a paradigm change in the history of biology is the Darwinian paradigm. Darwin’s evolutionary theory justifies the diversity of life by the process of natural selection. At the time, it caused a real disruption in the way people saw evolution, therefore impacting their way of thinking about the evolution of humans which was very controversial as opposed to the Bible's explanation of the apparition of humans, thus perceived by some as “an attack of traditional values”. Charles Darwin presented his theory in 1859 in On the origin of species.To back up his theory he used multiple different experimentations and observations - such as the notorious finches of the Galapagos islands possessing a large variety of shapes and sizes of beaks, accomplishing multiple functions that Darwin saw as a proof of the effect of natural selection on these different species according to the island they were one and its environment, requiring different beak qualities-all these observations forming solid scientific evidence to back up his evolutionary theory; a theory adopted in most parts of the world today.

The Origin of Life

Stanley Miller’s experiment in 1953 was also an important event in the history of biology's paradigm changes, as it offered an explanation of the origin of life on earth, triggering the growth of research in this field. “Life” is not easy to define; Christopher Chyba and Carol Cleland (two astrobiologists) even said in the Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere that trying to define it would be a mistake, as the knowledge about life is too small to impose an actual definition on it. However, although the lack of evidence of its origin makes it hard to define, a list of common characteristics of life on Earth can still be established; life’s essence is chemical, information is transmitted from one generation to the next by molecules, life exploits thermodynamic disequilibrium, biomolecules interact with water, and living systems have emerged as the result of random variations and natural selection.

In 1953, Stanley Miller’s experiment concluded that the environment most likely to have hosted the development of life was a “primordial soup”. Since then however, more evidence collected in different experiments have suggested that life wasn’t developed in such an environment but rather in black smokers or, as suggested more recently, alkaline vents.

The need for more evidence is therefore always needed in this scientific domain, always backing up certain theories or proving that others are wrong, contributing to the ever-evolution of the theories of the origin of life for instance, but also in all biological domains in general.

Atmospheric Chemistry and Chlorofluorocarbons

Atmospheric chemistry is an interdisciplinary field which considers the atmospheric chemical processes and their impacts on issues such as air pollution and climate change.

One key branch of atmospheric chemistry is the impact of man-made chlorofluorocarbons (or CFCs). Thomas Midgley first developed CFCs in 1928 for use in chemical refrigeration. During the 1950s and 1960s, CFCs were used in both large scale and domestic air conditioning systems as well as a wide range of products such as aerosol sprays. In addition, they were used in the manufacture of polymers. It would take irrefutable scientific evidence proving their detrimental effect on the ozone layer to limit and eventually ban the commonplace use of CFCs in domestic and commercial settings.

British scientist James Lovelock invented the Electron Capture Detector (ECD) which could determine trace atoms and molecules in a gas sample. The levels of CFCs Lovelock detected were almost identical to the levels of CFCs produced. The presence of CFCs was even observed in remote areas of the world, notably on Lovelock's expedition to Antarctica.

Lovelock’s findings were presented in a 1972 lecture which ignited the interest of Professer F.S. Sherwood Rowland. Rowland went on to investigate what happens to the CFCs in the atmosphere and, alongside Dr Mario Molina, Rowland began to understand the dangerous effect CFCs had on the ozone layer. They discovered that CFC molecules rise to the stratosphere, break down upon reaction with UV light and the released chlorine atoms subsequently react with ozone molecules, thereby depleting the ozone layer. Their findings were published in the science journal Nature in 1974.

These findings were not immediately accepted by the chemical industry. In 1975, the chairman of Du Pont dismissed this newfound scientific evidence. However, validation of Rowland and Molina’s findings came from scientists from the British Atlantic Survey who observed a decrease in stratospheric ozone since the mid-1970s above the Halley and Faraday research centres in Antarctica. Further confirmation came from NASA scientists who, through satellite observations, found that ozone levels were depleted across the whole Antarctic continent.

In 1987, 56 countries agreed the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the ozone layer, which aims to reduce CFC production and usage. Recent satellite observations by NASA have provided proof that the ozone layer above Antartica is recovering.

Evidence in the Anthropology of Religion

Anthropology of religion is a sub discipline of anthropology concerned with the social and cultural implications of religion on human societies, including comparative study of different religious systems. It is helpful to note the distinction between anthropology of religion, which focuses religion in a social context, and theology, which focuses on the nature of religious belief and the divine itself. The reliance of anthropological research on fieldwork makes it a highly empirical discipline - its evidence is largely based on observable phenomena. Such evidence can be split boradly into two categories: qualitative and quantitative.

Qualitative evidence

Qualitative evidence may consist of case studies, oral histories, interviews, field observations and other forms of non-numerical data that approximate and characterise the object of study. Qualitative evidence generally lends itself to a more phenomenological research approach, as it allows for a detailed picture complete with the meanings and values that humans associate with religion, and therefore helps provide understanding of the subjects' perspective that broadens our description. The phenomenological epistemological framework, supported by qualitative evidence, is particularly useful given the complexity of religion and the diversity of the human populations involved. Ingrid Storm emphasises the value of qualitative evidence in facilitating "empathic evocativeness which allows the reader to participate vivaciously in the subject's experience". Religion is a deeply personal experience which can benefit from qualitative methods to capture its richness and nuances.

Qualitative evidence does have its drawbacks to research within the Anthropology of Religion, particularly when considering the issue of subjectivity. The researcher inevitably influences the data collected through the personal decisions they make during the research process (ie. what questions they choose to ask, what they choose to emphasise etc). Confirmation bias plays a significant role in this, as the researcher may be inclined towards overemphasising data that support their hypotheses and being overly dismissive of data that does not.

Quantitative evidence

Quantitative evidence refers to numerical and statistical data which, in the context of Anthropology of Religion, may take the form of surveys, administrative records and commercial statistics.

Quantative evidence has an advantage over qualitative evidence in that the methodology used to obtain the data offers a greater level of precision. Quantitative methodologies prioritise reliability and validity through techniques that attempt to ensure a disciplined research process that minimises the risk of error. However, the precision of quantitative evidence compromises the complexity of qualitative data; statistics such as the number of people attending church or the amount of money donated to a charity provide useful insight into religiosity, but they fails to capture certain nuances which may affect meaning (eg. contextual factors).

The mixed method approach

Anthropologists have expressed the view that forcing a choice between qualitative evidence and quantitative evidence is often unhelpful given the need for both complexity (offered by qualitative methods) and precision (offered by quantitative methods) in the Anthropology of Religion. Although a mixed method approach that incorporates qualitative and quantitative evidence does entail complications with regards to the direct comparibility of different collections of evidence, it can be invaluable in "acheiving complimentarity, contextualisation and elaboration rather than corroboration of results".

Evidences in History

What are the evidences in History?

History is a very broad field of study. Interdisciplinary in nature it englobes economics, international relations, gender studies, among many other disciplines. As a result historians get to use a more diverse set of evidences compared to other disiciplines. These evidences can be from primary sources or secondary sources. Primary sources give first hand accounts of certain historical events and are very concrete things. Like when archeologists find reliques (jars, coins, corpses) inside a tomb for example. Secondary evidences are made from the analysis of historians and represent our interpretation of how things could have been in the past. They are far more common than primary sources.

Primary versus Secondary Evidence

Because primary sources have so much more value than secondary sources, historians continuously try to fund new excavation projects. Most recently, since 2018 archeologists have searched new quarters of the roman city of Pompeii. City which was destroyed at the beginning of the first millennia by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius. These last two years have provided an unprecedented amount of artifacts which help us deepen our understanding of how the city was organized, both politically and in terms of architecture, arts etc. Writings on walls and clay tablets found very recently have even provided evidence that the date of the actual disaster was not the one we originally thought of. Moving from August 24 79 to October 17 79. As we see, theses primary evidences give very precise information but are very limited in their quantity and therefore cannot be the only source of information. That is why secondary sources are essential. Secondary sources results from the collection, analysis, and interpretation of results by historians in order to recreate and share their knowledge with the average person as precisely as possible. While secondary evidences are usually more comprehensible they are often tainted by the lens through which the historian looks at the world. It is very difficult to always be completely objective and as a result people should always be cautious while looking at secondary sources.

How bias can influence evidences in History

Because History relies a lot on the personal feelings or ideas of the historian or even the person who made the historic artifact, bias and interpretation are common and can completely change the way an historical event is regarded. While we said that primary evidences were concrete in nature and therefore left little room for interpretation that does not mean that we should completely believe every primary sources we get. A famous adage says "History is written by the winners" and while the origin of the quote is blurry (maybe Chruchill, maybe Goring, maybe even before) it illustrates very well that throughout history most of the evidence left by the vanquished was destroyed while victors left their mark and influence. An example of that is the knowledge we have on pre-colonial cultures in America and especially Latin-America. Since very recently most of the information we had on the Incas, Aztecs or Mayas was from texts or objects left by the conquistadors and depicted these civilizations as illiterate precarious and anarchic savages. But because of new evidences we know for a fact these empires were a lot more developed than we thought. With political structures, advanced medicine and scientific knowledge, and a writing system, sometimes even more complex than the European invader, they were not savage canibals. This Bias in history can be even more pronounced when looking at secondary sources. In this case the personal ideology of the writer can modify even more the past and have dangerous effects on our society. An American historian might undermine the USSR's importance in world war 2 or a French historian might over estimate France's role in helping the American colonies achieve independence. In any case, this can spread mis-information which may influence people or our society as a whole today in some negative way.

Evidence in Public Policy

The study of public policy is interdisciplinary, combining fields such as political science, economics, law and public management to understand the relevant concepts and methods involved in policymaking. In UCL, the Social Policy and Social Research MSc also focuses on the links between research and policy.

Evidence-Based Policymaking

Evidence-based policymaking is a concept that advocates for the use of qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform policy decisions. It proposes that when scientific evidence and scientific methods are used comprehensively to understand ‘what works’, policy makers can better craft policies that achieve their goals to improve public well-being. Proponents of evidence-based policymaking establish that ideally there is a wide breadth of evidence used to inform policy. Quantitative data, data that is in numerical form such as statistics and percentages, is unbiased and can enable policymakers to have a better understanding of the facts surrounding an issue. Qualitative evidence is evidence collected through interviews with the public, focus groups, surveys etc. While policies shaped by evidence mainly rely on quantitative evidence, qualitative research adds a human perspective to the numbers. Currently, evidence-based policymaking is most common when it comes to public health, an example being the Government of Tanzania basing their health service reforms on the results of household disease surveys.

The modern debate about using evidence to shape public policy was popularized by the UK Labour government in the 1990s, with their party manifesto in 1997 being "what counts is what works". The Modernising Government white paper published in 1999 noted that the government "must produce policies that really deal with problems, that are forward-looking and shaped by evidence rather than a response to short-term pressures; that tackle causes not symptoms”. Though the idea of using evidence to inform policy seems to be common sense for the general public, the concept of evidence-based policymaking can be controversial.

Limitations of Evidence-Based Policymaking

Some political theorists are of the opinion that policymaking is fundamentally the discussion of an ideal society, something science and evidence alone cannot answer. Some have even taken the extreme stand to dismiss the entire idea of evidence-based policymaking as a concept that will never be fully applied in reality, with political scientist Jenny Lewis claiming that it is nothing more than a "technocratic wish in a political world". She argues that basing policy on science and evidence simplifies the complex nature of policymaking, as the process is inherently political.

However, even from this perspective, evidence is not irrelevant. Proponents of evidence-based policymaking argue that evidence is a tool that serves to identify the possible outcomes of a policy. It informs the policy, altering the minor details to improve its effectiveness, instead of aiming to directly influence the goal of the policy. They recognize that in a democracy, transparency and debate about social concerns are necessary, as well as how different social outcomes are valued compared with one another. This is something evidence cannot answer, as these discussions have to consider social values. An example of this is the debate about abortion in the United States. The debate is not solely about creating an abortion policy that is best for women’s health, something evidence can heavily inform. Instead, the debate is primarily discussed in terms of rights, whether the rights of an unborn outweighs the rights of women over their bodies. This is something based on the fundamentals of human rights, something science and evidence cannot answer.

Evidence in modern climate change

Climate change corresponds to the alterations, over a long period of time, of temperature and weather patterns on Earth or in a particular location. Its field of study encompasses the natural sciences. Climate change can be a natural process. Today, often called “modern climate change”, it refers to the global warming and severe weather changes the Earth has undergone since the Industrial Revolution due to human activity.

According to the NASA, the probability of human activity being responsible for climate change today is superior to 95%. However, many climate “sceptics” believe that climate change is not caused by humans and is part of a natural cycle of the Earth.

Evidence for climate change since the Industrial Revolution

First of all, scientists have to support evidence for climate change in itself. They collect multiple sources of quantitative data, to prove the global warming of the Earth. They have many indicators: the rise of global temperatures and of the sea level, the retreat of glaciers, the shrinking of artic ice, the warming of oceans, the loss of the wildlife. . Since pre-industrial times, the average temperature rise is of 1,5°C..

They will also use forms of qualitative evidence such as extreme weather events (hurricanes, wildfires…), or changes in the patterns of bird migrations, to prove that the climate is changing.

Evidence for the cause behind modern climate change

Secondly, scientists try to find the cause behind this climate change. By using their knowledge, such as on the greenhouse effect, they can orientate their research.

Once again, they use quantitative data, to measure for example the rise of fossil fuels in the atmosphere. Fossil fuels are an important indicator because they come from human activity. They have damaging effects: they contribute to the greenhouse effect by staying in the atmosphere and warming up the Earth. Scientists have found out that there was a 45% increase of CO2 levels since the Industrial Revolution. And to prove that this increase results from human activity, they distinguish natural CO2 molecules and the ones that are a product of human activity.

This is one example of evidence among many others. Climate change is an interdisciplinary field, and scientists will not only use statistics, but their knowledge in many different disciplines, such as palaeontology and chemistry. Paleoclimate data, which gives information on the climate in a particular region in the past, allows scientists to deepen their knowledge of the Earth’s natural geological cycles and what should be “acceptable” C02 levels.

Overall, the main struggle in evidence for modern climate change is not proving the climate change, but the evidence for the cause behind this. Scientists achieve this by making links between their knowledge, quantitative and qualitative data.

The importance of this evidence linking human actions to climate change can be seen through its role in shaping the 21st century's politics as today some politicians including presidents, like Donald Trump, still question the existence of climate change and humanity's impact on it, justifying the lack of action taken to fight the climate crisis by their organisations/governments.

Limitations of Quantitative Research in Criminology: A Case Study

Quantitative research is a widely-used method for gathering data in criminology. When it comes to the analyses of individuals’ criminal behaviours, the strongly scientific approach of quantitative research has great limitations, as it fails to take into account aspects like social and economic factors. The conclusions from this style of data can be interpreted in many different ways, having a potentially significant impact on society.

For example, the MET police regularly update and publish a Crime Data Dashboard. This dashboard tells us that from January 2013 to January 2014, 32,214 accounts of robbery - defined as stealing with the use or threatened use of force - occurred. The dashboard also conveys the crime rate (per 1000 population) for robbery in each borough. The borough with the highest crime rate for robbery was Westminster with a rate of 9.936, then Lambeth (7.858), Southwark (7.728) and then Newham (6.688). There are a number of conclusions that can be drawn from this data. All of these boroughs are mainly in Zones 1 and 2. From this it can be said that robbery mostly occurs nearer central London, which can then be manipulated to say that there are more robbers nearer central London. You could similarly state that there is more to be stolen in central London, or that robbers are more likely to use force nearer central London, making the distinction between robbery and theft. All these interpretations could be true, but in order to prove them, or find anything specific that is useful for working in criminology in attempting to understand criminal behaviour, more research is necessary.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that all the boroughs mentioned above are found in the poorest 11 boroughs for poverty, shown through a survey carried out by Trust For London in 2013-2014 that lists the London boroughs in order of percentage of individual residents in poverty. Without this data it is impossible to place the quantitative research on criminal statistics in social context. If poverty is a significant factor in crime rates for robbery, then action can be made towards redirecting funding and providing a greater welfare state to improve quality of life and then, in turn, improve the safety of various areas. However, as robbery is a crime that in its definition includes the use of force, it is also very easy to manipulate that data to further prejudices in terms of classism and prejudice surrounding systemic inequality. Therefore, this form of evidence can have large impacts of society depending greatly on who interprets it and has the power to create change based on it.

Digital evidence in the justice system

Definition

Digital evidence is a legally admissible element that can be used in judicial affairs. It covers any digital document from emails to digital signatures or even videos, photos, pdfs, texts, calendars... The court can order a Digital Forensic which is the process where experts or a specialized laboratory would produce a copy of this information in any format requested. Usually, smartphones are the first in line as they provide information on communications between individuals.

Digital evidence can be used and made relevant in any type of cases (hacking, extortion, terrorism, pedophilia, counterfeiting, labor law...) even if the infraction isn't exclusively linked to the digital world. Furthermore, it can also be used in litigations between companies, if there are mediations or conciliations.

Manipulation of digital evidence

In order for digital evidence to be admissible, there are several legal proceedings in order to ensure the authenticity of the taken information. It should be ensured that the information taken should not have been altered and that the experts are able to respect the chain of custody relating to the evidence. There are three main rules in the manipulation of digital evidence. Firstly, the actions taken in order to recover that evidence should not have put into question the integrity and reliability of the evidence. Secondly, the people conduction the analysis should be certified, trained in that sector, and be able to describe and explain their findings. Lastly, Any movement or actions taken on the evidence should be documented and in accordance of the 'chain of custody'. These rules make this evidence more reliable but also opens it to a bigger risk of being inadmissible.

Evidence in Theology

According to the University of Oxford website, Theology is a discipline which allows a better « understanding of the intellectual underpinning of religious traditions, and the social and cultural contexts for religious beliefs and practice ». In theology, a range of disciplines may be encountered, such as philosophy, literature, languages, and history.

This interdisciplinary approach is essential as it puts emphasis on the different kinds of evidence used in Theology. The nature of this evidence can be qualitative as well as quantitative, although the former is the most used, as shown by the use of literature and philosophy when understanding texts, or analyzing religious behaviors throughout the centuries.

The debate on the legitimacy of Theology as a science remains topical. First pointed out by Saint Thomas in his Summa Theologica, it discusses wether the conclusions deduced in Theology can be valid, as the premisses used aren’t always certain, or considered as rational knowledge. This brings us to the question of the nature of evidence: evidence should bring us to truth, but can truth be based on something unfounded? Can the Bible be considered evidence?

Furthermore, the issue of academic neutrality might come in question when using religious texts as evidence. Indeed, a person’s religion might influence the way this « evidence » is considered, analyzed or taken into account. Thus the ability to think critically is required to engage with religious truths, taken by believers for certain, final truths. Epistemology plays an important part in Theology, « but its role is that of servant, not master », as the aim of Theology as a discipline is not to find truth or proofs but to gain a better understanding of religions.

Evidence in Philosophy

Intuition as Evidence

Evidence in Philosophy is typically argued to be based on intuition, although this idea is contested by some philosophers such as Timothy Williamson or Max Deutsch, the term “intuition” in itself being interpreted differently in some cases. It is defined by Oxford Dictionary as 1.“the ability to know something by using your feelings rather than considering the facts” or 2.“an idea or a strong feeling that something is true although you cannot explain why”, the latter definition being associated with intuition in philosophy.

Nevin Clemenhaga, a Research Fellow in Philosophy at Australian Catholic University, argues that for most philosophers belief and intuition correlate, and that intuition is indeed used as evidence within this discipline. In “Mind” (2017), Clemenhaga justifies this by explaining that philosophers most often use intuition as evidence when they are aware that their beliefs are based on their intuition or that both are products of a common source. Indeed, if one is aware of and reflects on either of these causal relationships which link philosophical belief and intuition without this leading to one’s rejection of the intuition, it would seem that the intuition holds some truth and was not a product of irrationality.

Experimental Philosophy and Qualitative Methods

A fairly recent sub-discipline of philosophy, known as experimental philosophy, emerged at the beginning of the 21st century. It essentially uses interdisciplinarity in order to approach philosophical matters differently, combining experimental procedures usually used in psychology or social sciences with traditional philosophical questions or theories in order to explore the latter. Experimental research can either further explore intuitions in philosophy or be used to argue against this aspect of traditional philosophy, seeing intuitions as unreliable and subjective.

James Andow, a lecturer in the Department of Philosophy at University of Reading, explains experimental philosophy as using empirical tools and argues that this sub-discipline would benefit from an increased use of qualitative methods, for example open-answer surveys or interviews, or focus groups which encourage informal conversation. This could be used to obtain a deeper understanding of an individual’s thoughts and views regarding philosophical matters, simple quantitative surveys often being reductive in experimental philosophy, for instance.

Evidence in Paleontology

Paleontology is a discipline concerned with finding evidence for organisms which existed prior to the Holocene Epoch in order to classify them. There are three types of evidence that can point to the existence of an organism at a point in time, body fossil evidence, trace fossil evidence, and geochemical evidence.

Body Fossils

Fossil evidence of whole or parts of organisms are often the most useful type of evidence in paleontology. However, the conditions required to produce a fossil are rare and in many cases a fossil is destroyed by erosion or metamorphism before it can be found and catalogued. As such, the fossil record is incomplete, especially further back in time, and cannot be used as the sole provider of evidence for the existence and evolution of organisms. Additionally, the parts of organisms which are fossilised are typically hard shells of molluscs or bones, and so certain organisms are never fossilised. As such, fossil records can paint a broad picture of the evolution of life as we know it, but this picture will always remain incomplete.

Trace Fossils

Trace fossils are typically the tracks, burrows or droppings of organisms. These are important in filling in gaps in evidence, as they are not limited to those organisms with hard body parts, and have been found some time before the organisms that made them were thought to have existed. They also help us to learn about the behaviour of an organism which can help with classification as we can use this evidence to determine the purpose of body parts.

Geochemical Evidence

By studying the chemical composition of rocks of a certain period we can attempt to deduce the level of biological activity at that point, as well as the reasons why certain fossils have been preserved. For example, geochemical markers have been used to attempt to explain major events such as the Permian extinction (through analysis of carbon isotopes which appears to indicate widespread oceanic anoxia).