User:Manuela.Irarraz/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/ Seminar Group 7/ Evidence

'Evidence' can be defined as information that is used to support a statement, assertion, belief or story. It is of enormous importance when it comes to justifying and proving that a statement is true, as it provides valid reasons to form conclusions about truths in the world. Thus, the lack of evidence in support of or against a given proposition gives no reason to prefer that given proposition over competing propositions. The word « evidence » is closely related to the term « proof » but is considered to be less conclusive. "Proof" is definitive, and harder to dispute, while "evidence" is used to support rather than prove a statement or argument.

Academic disciplines have different methods of obtaining evidence because distinct forms of evidence are appropriate for different purposes. Additionally, the type and quantity of evidence needed to reject skepticism and accept an assertion or belief varies based on academic disciplines.

There are different types of evidence which can be spoken or written. Written evidence is generally more reliable than oral, because it can not be easily taken back or denied. For instance, during the Second World War, most of the evidence about concentration camps were testimonies which weren’t reliable. Because there was no written nor photographic evidence, what happened in concentration camps became well known only decades after 1945.

Characteristics of Evidence

Questioning the evidence

There are many kinds of evidence we can find physical evidence or documentary evidence but testimony can also be consider as an evidence in some disciplines (in Law, for example). Nevertheless, can we trust a testimony as we trust a documentary or physical evidence? Testimony is often considered less reliable, as humans are capable of deceit, especially as a means of self preservation. Therefore, we could imagine classifying the different sorts of evidence from the more objective one to the more subjective one. All these different types of evidence and their different degree of objectivity leads us to the question. When and how can we consider that evidence is enough to prove a statement? Can we say that some evidence have more value than others? We could say that evidence is enough when everybody believes that what it is proving is true. We could say that the value of an evidence increases with the relevance it has and the way it is convincing people.

Evidence standards

In order to obtain reliable sources of evidence, researchers must consider different aspects of the evidence they use to support their investigations. The publication Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings talks about the practice of meta-analysis for sources of evidence and the implementing of research findings into different fields of studies. It goes into different types of bias and methods to question evidence, such as sampling error, mistaken correlations, and other issues of the sort. The presence of bias and error in different studies can distort the truth and mislead researchers.

These kinds of biases are present in different disciplines, and show that mistakes are possible regardless of the field of study. The error can be seen in nutritional research, in clinical research, behavioral studies, physical sciences, etc.

Some elements to consider when finding pieces of evidence are the following:

Aim of research

This covers the intentions of previous research done, which has to do generally with the body funding the investigation. Conflict of interest and funding bias can appear in numerous occasions when the outcome of a study is affected by the interests of the research's financial sponsor.

Sponsorship bias in clinical research

Pharmaceutical companies customarily fund research to prove the effectiveness of their drugs; many times the studies concludes in evidence that results favourable to the sponsoring company's product, and this may be caused by bias and conflict of interest.

Companies such as Medline and Embase have shown to obtain better results in their studies than other studies that were not funded by pharmaceutical companies. In addition, a study for the journal The Lancet states:

"We have confirmed the presence of a systematic selection bias in the publication process according to study results. Studies with a statistically significant result for the main outcome of interest were more likely to be submitted forpublication and more likely to be published than studies with null results, after adjustment for confounding factors."

The purpose of pharmaceutical companies is to increase the sales of their product by assuring their readers (usually doctors or members of the medical community) that their drugs function properly for a specific aim. The repercussions of these are considerable, since the practice of medicine can de affected by the results of this kind of research.

The Role of the Food Industry in Nutrition Research

Obesity is a disease that has increased enormously during the 21st century, even becoming an epidemic in some countries. Lifestyles have changed radically (frenetic routines, sedentary habits) in the past fifty years and this has derived in a shift of priorities: people tend to prefer faster, easier, and tastier choices when it comes to eating; besides, they are usually not educated about nutrition and therefore tend to not make the healthiest decisions for themselves.

The food industry has taken advantage of this situation and has been growing steadily with the lapse of the years. In order to favour their interests, the food industry takes part in research and investigation about nutrition that come up with a set of results that incentives people's preferences towards their products.

Food Industry Participation in National Health Groups

Many activities by the food industry have been considered highly problematic. Documented tactics include promotion of harmful products, misleading marketing campaigns, targeting of children and other susceptible groups, corporate lobbying, coopting of organizations and social media with financial support, and attacks against science and scientists. It should be reasonable to think that these kind of entities would be separated from national health organisms. But in some cases, they are not.

The USA has one of the highest obesity rates in the world. To aid this issue and other health-related problems, there exist different national organisms dedicated to improve the health situation in America by the means of research and intervention. However, a study made in 2017 revealed that the two biggest soda companies in the world, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, were sponsoring many (specifically, 97) of the National Health Groups, such as Feeding America, Food Research and Action Centre (FRAC), and Association of Healthcare Foodservice. In the article, the conclusion is:

"There is surprisingly pervasive sponsorship of national health and medical organizations by the nation’s two largest soda companies. These companies lobbied against public health intervention in 97% of cases, calling into question a sincere commitment to improving the public’s health. By accepting funding from these companies, health organizations are inadvertently participating in their marketing plans."

Again, the conflict of interests takes part here and leads into a population that does not know how to make healthy choices for themselves, because the bias is coming from a "reliable source" that is the National Health Group. Why doubt a statement that is not only being said by the state, but is also backed up by science and research that looks legit?

Diet myths

As the issue of obesity increased in the lapse of the 20th Century, more attention was drawn towards research about nutrition. This began in the 1970s, when many famous studies came out with different theories to achieve a healthy lifestyle. As an example, some articles discovered that in order to be healthier, people should not consume fats. Suddenly, milk was skimmed and snacks were labelled as "low in fat". Other studies found out that sugar was the main reason for people's obesity, therefore high-in-sugar products such as soda brands created "low in sugar" or "light" alternatives for their sugary drinks.

Another issue related to this matter is the importance of nutrition over exercise and vice-versa. Many nutritionists will say that the most important part of a healthy lifestyle is maintaining a healthy diet, while sports experts will say that being active is more important. Again, food companies can take advantage of this and create even more confusion in the population. The Global Energy Balanced Network was a US-based nonprofit claiming to fund research into causes of obesity, but was primarily known for promoting the idea that lack of exercise, not bad diet, was primarily responsible for the obesity epidemic. It was funded partly by the company Coca-Cola, which had an interest in funding research whose results favoured the consumption of sugary drinks (which has decreased grandly in the last years). In an article from the New York Times, the newspaper states the following:

"Since 2008, the company has also provided close to $4 million in funding for various projects to two of the organization’s founding members: Dr. Blair, a professor at the University of South Carolina whose research over the past 25 years has formed much of the basis of federal guidelines on physical activity, and Gregory A. Hand, dean of the West Virginia University School of Public Health."

Why, if not for its own interest, would a company that sells highly-sugared drinks want to make people healthier? This shows how the conflict of interest can bias the outcome of a study to favour the goal of the investor of the research. As an outcome of the several propositions that scientists make about nutrition (independently of the funding body of the research), a lot of people are mistaken when making decisions about their health. This becomes a cycle of ignorance and advantage-taking that plays with the world's health. To have a deeper approach, this article by The Guardian takes a look at some examples in different sections of the Food Industry. It remarks that

"A 2007 review of 206 studies that looked at the health benefits of milk, soda and fruit juices found that those sponsored entirely by a food or beverage company were four to eight times more likely to show positive health effects from consuming those products."

This is something to think about when encountering studies about nutrition: who is funding it?

Reputation of the author in relation to studies of Physics

This element is closely related to the the argumentative fallacy argumentum ad verecundiam (Appeal to Authority). In this fallacy, the authority of someone is misused in order to support an argument.

Many examples of this error can be found in the History of Science, usually under the title of "Controversy". Revolutionary ideas were usually discarded in favour of established theories developed by scientists of big authority and fame. In the 16th Century, Nicolaus Copernicus wrote De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres), where he developed the heliocentric theory that placed the Sun rather than the Earth at the centre of the Solar System. This discovery had been made around eighteen centuries earlier by Aristarchus of Samos, whose ideas were rejected completely in favour of the incorrect Geocentric theories developed by Aristotle and mainly Ptolemy. In addition, organisms of authority such as the Church supported the old theories as well because they did not interfere with the Theology and Philosophy of the time. In future years, Galileo Galilei was even convicted of grave suspicion of heresy for "following the position of Copernicus, which is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture".

Authority should have no place in Science. Carl Sagan wrote of arguments from authority:

"One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else."

Peer review plays a crucial role in diminishing the presence of prejudice in scientific papers. Through peer review, a panel of academics in a given discipline evaluate a work of research before it can be published in a journal. This heightens the credibility of published works because it demonstrates a deeper consensus in the academic community that the methods and findings of the research are valid.

Thorough Research: Scientific vs. Humanistic Research

The publication Principles of Research in Behavioral Sciences provides a comprehensive review of research methods used in psychology and related disciplines. It helps achieve unbiased and neutral research, which is essential, as well as other matters such as sample size (diverse and representative sampling is very important in order to obtain reliable results).

Epistemologies

The book also describes the concept of epistemology, which is basically the set of beliefs about science and about knowledge. The main epistemology in Western Science is Logical Positivism, which holds that knowledge can be generated through empirical observation, tightly controlled experiments, and logical analysis of data.It also says that scientists must be disinterested observers of nature who are emotionally distant from what or whom they study, and that they research for the sake of knowledge, not for a specific purpose.

On the other hand, the epistemology in the humanistic disciplines holds that science should produce knowledge that serves people, not just knowledge for its own sake; also that people are better understood when studied in their natural environments, rather than when isolated in laboratories. Finally, it confirms that that a full understanding of people come through empathy and intuition rather than mere logical analysis and empiricism.

Relevance in racial and gender studies

When judging sources of evidence, the reader/researcher should take into account in which context the evidence was attained (social, political, historical, etc.), and whether this is a relevant set of circumstances to apply to more recent studies.

The concepts of post-colonialism and post-imperialism take part here, since a set of truths created by the American-European world have been spread around the world as absolute truths, but usually do not take into account a diverse array of circumstances. For instance, the concept of 'Feminism' is often related to the series of struggles that white, western women face.

“The oft told story of the development of (contemporary) ‘feminist theory’ is a story of privileged women in Euro-American societies founding and maintaining an interdisciplinary field of study that has its roots in political activism and consciousness raising (...) this particular historiography as one of (homogenous) white, middle-class and Western women who are out to define the world, women and gender oppression in their own terms.”

The European/American world has colonised/imperialised the concept of Feminism, but their view does not apply to every different aspect within the issues of women (race, political position, social class, etc). Every one of these aspects must be taken into account when defining the term.

The relevance of some definitions of the concept 'feminism' must be taken into question because they are not completely relevant.

Scientific evidence

Scientific disciplines use empirical evidence, or evidence generated from observations of the physical world, to support conclusions. This evidence is generated using the framework of the scientific method. Researchers, form a question about some observation of the natural world, create a hypothesis which they treat with rigorous skepticism to answer this question, conduct an experiment, and draw conclusive evidence through analysis of the results of the experiment. Through this process, they collect empirical evidence with an inductive reasoning that can support or counter their propositions. They also use deductive reasoning based on what they know is true in order to deduce another statement. We can quote Walt Whitman, an American poet and journalist who says : “I like the scientific spirit—the holding off, the being sure but not too sure, the willingness to surrender ideas when the evidence is against them: this is ultimately fine—it always keeps the way beyond open—always gives life, thought, affection, the whole man, a chance to try over again after a mistake—after a wrong guess.” (Walt Whitman's Camden Conversations). Sciences are about making mistakes in order to find the law, the model, the rule that is the closest from the absolute truth, that is incontestable. Thus, there is a direct link between the truth and the evidence in sciences: Scientific evidence are a means to find the absolute truth.

Evidence in law

Evidence can be divided in five categories according to the law. First of all, written evidence which can be electronic or manual, both are considered equally reliable. Secondly, there are testimonies, they express an oral evidence of a person whom offers a statement of what she saw or heard. Moreover, a proof by presumption is a juge’s deduction based on different clues and indications which incriminate someone. Furthermore, a confession is a statement given by someone whom admits facts which are often negative for this person. Finally, a statement told under oath is an allegation told in a law court. The person making this statement promises to tell the truth.

The law states that certain types of evidence are more reliable and trustworthy than others. There are « perfect proofs » which must be held into account by the judge and « imperfect proofs » which don’t always have to be considered by the judge. Perfect proofs are: written evidence, confessions and statements under oath. Imperfect proofs are: testimonies and proofs by presumption.

Interdisciplinary research today

"Researchers who stubbornly claim that their research need not have a larger, transdisciplinary impact face a future that involves less and less research and more and more teaching." Robert Frodeman , Adam Briggle & J. Britt Holbrook (2012) Philosophy in the Age of Neoliberalism, Social Epistemology, 26:3-4, 311-330, DOI: 10.1080/02691728.2012.722701

It is arguable that research today is as valuable as its market value. The funding allocation depends on its impact before and after it has been performed. (Frodeman and Briggle 2012). It is a reinforced belief that societal and environmental problems can be solved through the production of additional knowledge. (citation missing)