Wikibooks

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

< User:Nicola.georgiou/sandbox‎ | Approaches to Knowledge/Seminar group 16

Seminar Group 16 Evidence Contributions

Introduction edit

Evicence is by the Cambridge Dictionary of English defined as: ”one or more reasons for believing that something is or is not true”.[1] According to the Scientific Method, empirical evidence is required to verify a hypothesis.[2] Although, in the modern world of research there are other types of evidence as well. A few examples are documentary evidence [3], such as documents presented as proof in a courtroom as well as historical evidence [4], which could be the study of fossils to provide support for the theory of biological Evolution. This sandbox provides an introduction to these varying sorts of evidence in varying disciplines.

Evidence of the Effect of Magic Mushrooms on Mental Disorders edit

Magic mushrooms are toadstools with hallucinogenic properties, containing the compound psilocybin, the prodrug of psilocin. [5] They have been used for over 6000 years but were popularised in the 1960s until they were made illegal (in most countries) by the UN in 1971.[6]

The first psilocybin study after the previously mentioned War on Drugs was conducted in 1997 at the University of Zurich, led by Dr Franz Vollenweider. It was found that the drug increased cerebral glucose metabolism (brain activity), while decreasing the default mode network (a network of brain regions active when a person is not focused on the outside world, associated with the ego), and more importantly that brain function under the influence of psilocybin was in complete contrast with that of schizophrenic patients.[7] This study triggered research at countless other reputable institutions such as John Hopkins University and the University of Toronto.

Another landmark investigation was the Psilocybin for Depression study done by the Beckley/Imperial Research Programme. Oral psilocybin was given to 20 patients with refractory depression — each person was given two doses, 7 days apart and underwent brain scans. Subsequently, it was shown that all patients had reductions in their depression scores at 1 week, 2 weeks, 3 weeks, 5 weeks, and 3 months.[8]

However, these studies were done on a relatively small-scale and placebos were used in just the first study, thus making it not completely valid. Nevertheless, the results offer promising opportunities for further investigation.

Evidence with regards to modern drug research will indubitably be difficult to be concordantly accepted due to the lack of large scale long term studies, done with precautions for a margin of error (ie. placebos, double blind tests), thus needing further experimentation. For this to be viable, central governmental legislation regarding hallucinogenics, or hallucinogenics within the scientific world, must be reevaluated, as there is little and possibly unreliable, though distinctly supporting, evidence substantiating the favourable effects of this type of drug.

Evidence in Law edit

The Nature and Types of Evidence edit

In the discipline of Law, it is the rules of evidence that govern the proof of facts. To help the Judge and/or Jury reach decisions, the evidence “covers the burden of proof, admissibility, relevance, weight and sufficiency of what should be admitted into the record of a legal proceeding” which depends on the specific situation of case.[9] The types of evidence basically include oral testimonials, evidence written in the form of documents, and physical objects (“real evidence”).[10]

Evaluation of the Use of Evidence edit

There is broad distinction between the use of evidence in traditional scientific disciplines and that in Law. It is worth considering to what extent the use of evidence in Law is compelling.

It is clear that a majority are qualitative evidence. The physical objects admissible to be presented to the court are relatively undisputed e.g. knife, hair or blood samples collected as forensic evidence from crime scenes. Oral testimonies, however, are less trustworthy. As witnesses narrate their testimonies in front of the court, the act of recalling memories and personal experiences is highly subjective, thus unreliable. One research has shown the “audience-tuning effect” that both messages and memory itself are changed when one memory is described to different audiences.[11] This implies the fallibility of memory after it is manipulated unconsciously, and that testimonials used as evidence are not 100% accurate. The intentional interpretation of testimonies and inferences made from them by attorneys for the sake of one side even makes the use of evidence at disposal more biased.

However, witness testimonials are assumed to be a convincing form of evidence because people who are qualified as witnesses are “presumed to have a legal obligation to serve as witnesses if their testimony is sought” where solemnity is demonstrated.[12] They have legal duty known as “Burden of proof”.[13] When more new evidences are obtained, the “weight” of argument will increases despite the uncertain change of the degree of “probability”.[14] Besides, the mature nature of legal system works to examine the quality of evidences. Opposed positions of prosecution and defence in court form the vital counterbalance relationship.[15] The authoritative jurisdiction including the jury system exists to assess the verifiability in hope to reduce erroneous judgements as well.

Evidence in Anthropology edit

The essence of knowledge is that it is organised information[16]. But what does it mean for anthropology specifically ? The knowledge that anthropologists use as evidence relies on information that they gather concerning our ways of living in the world and contributing to it[17]. According to the danish philosopher Lars-Henrik Schmidt, for it to be considered as knowledge, the information collected needs to be « reductive » and « selective ». Reductive because you try to turn universal complexity and mystery into something clearer, therefore limited, and selective because for it to become knowledge, you obviously need to neglect some information, in order to organize it better[18]. So when anthropologists inquire on a particular insight, they need to look at the object of interest but also its mode of interest, thus constantly asking themselves how they are going to organize the data they collected into evidence[19]. As a matter of fact, anthropologists generally perceive knowledge as a social phenomenon, in the sense that it is often a matter of perspective, that’s why the evidence that they are going to use is mainly qualitative[20]. As a human science, there are some notions on human life, human perspective that you can not capture with numbers.

If anthropological knowledge is indeed part of a subjective process based on interpretation, it doesn’t mean that this process isn’t disciplined[21].There are two implicit regulations that allow us to filter evidence. The first one would be the registration filter of the ethnographer directly on the filed: when anthropologists collect data, they choose what they believe would be relevant information. The second filter is the institutional one, which involves all the academic discipline markers, such as a particular way of reasoning, but also of communicating and organising the data. Thus, by framing it in an academic context, the subjective evidence collected becomes, in a way, rather objective[22].

But how do anthropologists really collect evidence then ? Fieldwork definitely plays an essential role in the process. For example in material and visual culture, case studies on objects will consist in analyzing objects directly while using all your senses, to report everything you observed, discovered about the object. In fieldwork, social relations are essential to acquire knowledge. It’s this relational aspect, wether it is between an object and a person or even between two cultures, that will help establishing relevant facts[23]. Moreover, the anthropologist is a double agent when he collects data on the field: he is both in the position of a researcher and of an actor in the world that he’s observing. He needs to take this in consideration every time he searches for evidence[24]. Finally, even if qualitative evidence is the main source of anthropological knowledge, quantitative evidence exists too, and helps finding numerical patterns that can explain human behavior, especially through surveys, maps, charts, graphs, textual descriptions and statistical analyses[25].

The evidence of doping in competitive sports and its impact on the human body edit

Sports at a professional level is the organized playing of competitive games following specific rules .[22] Doping on the other hand is the administration of drugs in order to enhance sporting performance. It is clear in people’s mind that doping represents a form of cheating. Why is it so common and what are the effect of doping on the human body ?

First, we will start by stating the fact that doping in competitive sports is far more common that what the general opinion thinks it is. The Guardian published an article that stated that an “anonymous survey carried out at two athletics competitions in 2011” showed that 57 % of the athletes have admitted doping in at least the past year. [23] Doping is so popular among athletes because it makes possible for their bodies to “endure even more stress and exhaustion”.[24] In addition, doping is such a big part of sports because of the pressure created by all the money and sponsors involved in the most competitive leagues.[24] So what are the impacts on an individual’s health ?

A campaign by the Australian sports anti-doping authority which aims to prevent the use of drugs in order to enhance physical performances stated that athletes that used steroids are at risk of heart attacks, strokes and had increased risks of liver and cardiovascular diseases[25]. It was also shown that between 1987 and 1990 “20 young Belgian and Dutch cyclists died” after the use of injections of erythropoietin ( blood doping).[26] Therefore, we understand that there is evidence that can support the fact that doping and the use of drugs is something common in competitive sports. Furthermore, evidence also shows the negative impact on health that doping can have on the human body and how it can and has killed young and strong athletes.

Evidence in Economics: GDP vs GDH edit

Lately, evidence in economics is abundant due to increasing convenient access to datasets and improvements in statistical methods. With traditionally quantitative data outweighing the qualitative, economics has seen a paradigm shift, with the emergence of behavioural economics, catalysing economists into research about ‘happiness’ as economic indicators.[26]

GDP as Evidence for Economic Health edit

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is often the standard for measuring a nation’s productivity and overall economic health.[27] Ways of calculating GDP and the evidence that goes with it varies. Often, data is collected on a national scale, communicating with companies through sample based surveys about their output, expenditure and income measures.[28] However, there are limitations to using GDP as the guiding measurement of growth with many factors statistics might not take into account: Unpaid work like household work isn’t noted in official figures. Additionally income inequality is greatly disproportionate as GDP growth doesn’t represent how income is divided across demographics. Valued factors in life are not fully captured by GDP, but can be measured by metrics of areas like health and education.[29]

GNH as Evidence for Economic Health edit

Economists then came to consider the palpable needs and desires of people. Gross National Happiness (GNH) is the economic philosophy that guides governments like Bhutan measuring the well-being and happiness of a population.[30] The GNH Index includes nine domains: Psychological well being, Health, Education, Time use, Cultural diversity and resilience, Good governance, Community vitality, Ecological diversity and resilience and Living standards.[31]

These domains are guided by Bhutan’s four pillars of spiritual growth: Good governance, Economic development, Culture and Economic conservation. The GNH can be broken down by demographics e.g. among men and among women, or by district, to show what domain is lacking in certain areas.[32] Again, this evidence is obtained through regular sample based surveys. With the qualitative nature of the data, the subjective perspectives towards ‘happiness’ will vary with individuals. Another possible limitation of survey data usefulness is based on respondent bias. For example, if the data could represent government performance, their responses perspective may shift away from personal well-being.[33]

Evidence in Underwater Archaeology edit

Archeology itself can be defined as the search, collection, and study of historical evidence. Underwater archeology involves the same practices, but only in regards to the evidence found underwater. Underwater archaeological sites are mainly consisted of the following four kinds: “discarded refuse and 'lost' material; submerged sites of former human occupation; shrines or places of offerings; and shipwrecks.” [34] Archaeological sites that are underwater are especially significant because the clues are better preserved under the surface of water compared to the ones on the land, which is called the “time-capsule-effect.” [35]

The evidence that is searched for can be divided into three categories: “structure, sediments, and contents.” [36] Structures give away information about certain buildings or vessels, as well as shedding light on the historical and cultural context about the period they were built in. [37] Sediments are “geological materials formed by earth processes under ordinary surface conditions by the action of water, wind, ice, gravitation, and biological organisms.” [38] On sites that are submerged, sediments can be crucial pieces of evidence about the landscape studied, its surrounding environment, and the people who used to inhabit it. They can help draw a clearer picture of what the site was like when it used to be on land. Lastly, the contents encompass all the objects that act as evidence on the thoughts, ways of life, and knowledge of the people that they were associated with. [39] They might be artefacts, ecofacts, human, animal, or invertebrate remains, botanical materials, or micro-organisms. [40]

Once the evidence is found and documented, it must be comprehended and interpreted. The methods of making use of the evidence involves looking for the answers to the following questions: “where (position and association), what (recognition, description and typology), how (context) and when (dating).” [41] Regarding the historical evidence, both primary and secondary sources are used. However, secondary sources may reflect certain myths, and should be complemented by primary sources - “such as ships’ and lighthousekeepers’ logs” - although sometimes even those can be unreliable. [42]

Due to the complexity of the field of underwater archaeology, a comprehensive search for evidence is critical when making conclusions, and each piece of evidence must be examined in a large context, in relation with other pieces of evidence that might have a meaningful connection.

Evidence in Clinical Psychology: Evidence-Based Practice edit

Evidence-based practice applies to many disciplines, but in clinical psychology, evidence is crucial in order to provide the best patient care. [43]

Introduction to evidence-based practice (EBP) edit

According to Gray, Haynes, and Richardson (1996), evidence-based medicine is “the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients.” [44] There are three parts to evidence-based practice: best available research evidence, clinical expertise, and patient characteristics. Research evidence includes previous case studies and even evidence derived directly from previous clinical practice. This part is probably the most quantitative. The other two parts are more qualitative; clinical expertise relies on the health care professional’s skills (in this case a clinical psychologist) to treat a patient, all the while considering the patient’s individual circumstances. While both qualitative and quantitative evidence are used, the qualitative data is arguably more important in any health care field due to the fact that each patient and their concerns are different. [45]


EBP in Clinical Psychology edit

Evidence-based practice is used often by psychologists when treating patients. Since psychological issues are often very complex and wide-ranging, the American Psychological Association recommends that comprehensive research from different sources (e.g. clinical observation and public health research among others) will help with treatment effectiveness. Researchers and clinical psychology practitioners should also work together to ensure the research is up-to-date and relevant. Hence, clinical psychologists are trained as scientists as well as practitioners. This allows them to have both the knowledge and the skills needed to treat a patient to the best of their abilities. Clinical psychologists also use qualitative evidence from the patient (even their sociocultural context) to set treatment goals and a likely prognosis. [43]

The fundamental point behind evidence in clinical psychology is that the only way to determine whether a course of treatment works is through the scientific method (previous studies). For this reason, the type of data used as evidence in the practice of clinical psychology is developed over time and constantly changing. [46]

Cooperative Evidence in the discipline of Physics edit

Introduction to Evidence edit

The Greek philosopher Aristotle first mentioned the concept of evidence-based reasoning approximately 350 BCE. He explained the principle by reasoning around cause and consequence.[47] Since then, the perception of evidence has changed. Today, evidence is defined as something that supports a claim.[48] Different academic and scientific disciplines use different sorts of evidence to support claims, such as historical evidence, mathematical evidence or empirical evidence. An interesting discipline in the aspect of evidence is physics.

Empirical Evidence edit

The discipline of physics uses varying types of evidence. A first example is empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is also known as experimental evidence, and it is found by conducting practical observations or experiments. Said observations or experiments have to be performed several times and a consistency in results in the different attempts is required.[49] The practical research should also be based on a hypothesis, and the research method should be easily repeatable.[50]

Cooperation between Empirical Evidence and Mathematical Evidence edit

Another way physicists can provide support for a claim is by mathematical evidence. An example in this area is the discovery of dark matter. Dark matter is matter that cannot be seen.[51] In 1933, the astronomer Fritz Zwicky mathematically realised that galaxies did not contain enough matter for Newton’s equations of gravity to be applicable. Thereby Zwicky reached the conclusion that invisible, or dark, matter must exist.[52] In 2006 NASA were able to identify dark matter with the use of advanced telescopes,[53] hence additional empirical evidence supported Zwicky’s theory of dark matter.

Conclusion edit

To conclude, varying evidence used is in Physics. The different sorts of evidence can cooperate and provide support for each other. However, it is important to note that nothing is ever certain in the scientific world. Evidence is only a factor that provides support for a claim, meaning evidence does not promise that a claim is true. The evidence-based system of thought shows that knowledge is dynamic which is why dynamic disciplines are crucial.


The Use of Evidence in Journalism & its Fight for Relevance in the Digital Age edit

File:The News Is The News.jpg
The News Is The News, a live news-satire program aired in 1983 on NBC, criticizing the real news of the preceding seven days

[54]

Journalism has continuously been in a perpetual state of evolution because of technological advancements. It is perceived that with the emergence of a new information-sharing platform, another one dies; therefore, the debate regarding journalism's future has been grim since the upheaval of social media. It is believed that journalists fears' are inclined towards how to attract new audiences and how to stay relevant in the new media era.[55]

Forms of Data Journalism Uses in the New Media Era edit

Journalists use both quantitative and qualitative data in their writings. Multiple data gathering methods have been used since the beginning of newspapers, in the late 1400s' Europe[56], such as eyewitness observation, the interview.[57] Recently, technological advancements expanded the options journalists have in collecting data-photography, videos, online interviews-making it easier to find evidence, both quantitative and qualitative in backing up stories. The type of evidence used depends on the tone of an article(politically and health-related coverages require quantitative evidence, empirical data, to stay relevant), while other articles stand out through their story, stemming from qualitative data.[58]

How the New Media Era influences Journalism's Practice of Displaying Evidence edit

Journalism goes through a popularity fight, with all other media platforms, since being earnest and providing useful pieces of information is no longer required for staying relevant. The audience's availability puts pressure on how journalists structure articles because people are prone to consume media based on how easily they can access it, rather than based on their personal preferences.[59] Since sensational headlines catch the readers' attention easily and fact-checking news information is becoming increasingly hard with the numerous online media content available, there has been a great rise in 'Fake Media'[60]. 'Fake Media' manages to be successfully spread to a wide audience through 'relevance' algorithms which are based on popularity (the more popular a topic is, regardless of its truth value, the more it is displayed on social media).[61] That being said, 'Breaking News' stories could become easily viral, regardless of their content (their truth value)[62], therefore journalism can stay relevant in the digital age while providing true information to its readers.[63]

Paleontology and comparative biochemistry as evidence for evolution edit

Paleontological investigations of fossils edit

Prehistoric fossils are studied as evidence of biological evolution. In observing the similarities in the anatomical composition of fossils, scientists can show how organisms have evolved from the same ancestors. Fossils are formed when animals and plant structures are preserved in a soft substance like mud or clay and over time, ‘sediment builds over the top and hardens into rock’ [64]. The different layers of sediment correspond to different ‘geological eras’ [65], thus giving a distinguished temporal framing of each fossil, allowing scientists to place these structures sequentially [66]. From these fossils, one can inspect the molecular biological compositions of organisms and the biogeographical patterns that are shared between species with a common ancestor, providing a baseline that can consequently be used to observe divergent evolution.

Comparative biochemistry edit

The study of proteins and other ‘molecular sequences’ [67] is another significant type of evidence used in determining the relation of multiple species and how they evolved from a shared common ancestor. Species that are closely related share more common proteins and DNA. This method is often paired with palaeontology to observe shared ancestry between species. Through the inspection of the chemical compositions of organisms, researchers can use the evidence acquired to form links that demonstrate how species have evolved over periods of time. Moreover, findings of this practice can be reinforced by those of comparative anatomy, which investigates the ‘homologies, or inherited similarities among organisms’[68]. The process is used in relation to living species due to the decomposition of certain soft-bodied organisms that are too rapid for them to be fossilised. This is exemplified in Darwin's observation of how the beaks of finches were adapted to food available on the island they inhabited, using historical developments as a baseline to observe their evolution [69]. The development of these processes have provided credence to the evolution of species; ultimately, serving as prime evidence for it. As time goes on, scientific developments in such processes render the evidence more and more reliable.

Evidence in Behavioral Economics edit

Behavioral Economics reunites mainly Psychology, Social Studies and Economics to understand how psychological, cultural, emotional and social context can lead to a certain choice from a consumer. This discipline reunites Three others that traditionally use different type of evidence.

Evidence in Economics edit

For the Economics part, it is more about studying the result of all the factors we talked about on the consumer. While psychological, cultural, emotional and social context can’t ( exactly) be observed in action, we need to look at their consequences to understand them better. Pure quantitative Evidence that shows the concret dimension of a consumer habit : his spendings. What does he buy ? How much does he buy ? How often ? Indeed, it is all about measures and numbers.

The main tools used to calculate these habits are data. For example, if we want to see the effect of a a passing on a consumer’s habit, we can compare their expense before the passing and after. Creating a ratio for each kind of products bought and see which category is the more affected by looking at the ratio obtained helps to understand how a consumer changed (or not) his spending habits.

But Economics and data can only see things ‘all things apart’, which means that by only looking at numbers, you may fail to notice that there is a pattern in this habit or that a factor considered as minor had a bigger impact then it should have.

Evidence in Psychology edit

When Economics says that a choice is mainly the result of an unconscious calculus between benefit and cost, Psychology and neuroscience say otherwise. Qualitative Evidence shows how one’s preference evolve when you change factors like price, emotion, social context,... changes that could be considered as irrational following [70] . For example, Dan Ariely led an experiment which showed that people Automatically valued something labeled as ‘Free’, ‘A free chocolate is disproportionately more attractive relative to a $0.14 chocolate than a $0.01 chocolate is compared to one priced at $0.15‘ [71]. These kind of social experiment offers qualitative evidence for the analysis of consumer behavior. The evolution of ethics have improved the condition of th

Polls, surveys, interviews or experiments like Ariely’s and observation are tools that help to understand the process in someone’s psychology that will maje him choose something economics say he wouldn’t choose over something economics say he would choose.

Evidence in Social Sciences edit

Social science is defined by Britannica as ‘any branch of academic study or science that deals with human behaviour in its social and cultural aspects’ [72] . As this discipline is about understanding behavior Or social phenomena ( things that we can’t evaluate or measure), Social sciences are usually associated with Qualitative evidence. It indeed use the same tools as Psychology for example ( it’s also since Psychology is one of the roots of social Science). Social sciences applied to Behavioral economics also use ‘Behavioral Experiments ‘. For instance, Gary Charness made a book of all the social behavioral experiments he has done, assembling a lot of important data. In one of them he explores the decrease in someone’s willingness to sacrifice when other adopt unfair behavior or don’t sacrifice as much. It’s called the reciprocity motive [73] . This motive couldn’t have been Underlined by the economics or psychology Evidence as it requires to not focus on people’s brain or consuming habits, but to focus on his behavior in and towards society.

References edit

[22] NCBI, "Performance enhancing hormone doping in sport", David J. Handelsman, last updated on February 29, 2020 [23] The Guardian, "Sport doping study revealing wider usage published after 'scandelous' delay", Nicola Davis, Tuesday 29 August 2017. [24] Michael Kummer, "Is doping unfair and why athletes do it ?", Michael Kummer, September 2, 2013, last updated october 9 2020. [25] ASADA, "Danger of doping" [26] The Guardian, "Blood doping : what is it and has anyone died as a result of it ?" , Haroon Siddique, Dunday 2 august 2015.

  1. ↑ Cambridge Dictionary [Internet]. Cambridge University Press; 2020. evidence; [cited 2020 Oct 25]. Available from: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/evidence
  2. ↑ Braithwaite RB, Nagel E, Popper K. Scientific method. Encyclopædia Britannica [Internet]. 2020 Jan 16 [cited 2020 Oct 26]. Available from: https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-method
  3. ↑ Griffith University [Internet]. Queensland (AUS): Library of Griffith University; 2020. Types of Evidence; 2020 Sep 25 [cited 2020 Oct 27]. Available from: https://libraryguides.griffith.edu.au/c.php?g=28798&p=177683
  4. ↑ Griffith University [Internet]. Queensland (AUS): Library of Griffith University; 2020. Types of Evidence; 2020 Sep 25 [cited 2020 Oct 27]. Available from: https://libraryguides.griffith.edu.au/c.php?g=28798&p=177683
  5. ↑ (Carhart-Harris, Robin L., et al. “Neural Correlates of the Psychedelic State as Determined by FMRI Studies with Psilocybin.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 109, no. 6, 2012, pp. 2138–2143. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41477085. Accessed: 2020 Oct 26)
  6. ↑ (United Nations. Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971. Accessed: 2020 Oct 26)
  7. ↑ (Vollenweider, F., Leenders, K., Scharfetter, C. et al. Positron Emission Tomography and Fluorodeoxyglucose Studies of Metabolic Hyperfrontality and Psychopathology in the Psilocybin Model of Psychosis. Neuropsychopharmacol 16, 357–372 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0893-133X(96)00246-1)
  8. ↑ Carhart-Harris, Robin L., et al. "Psilocybin with psychological support for treatment-resistant depression: an open-label feasibility study". Lancet Psychiatry 2016. Accessed: 2020 Oct 26
  9. ↑ What are the Rules of Evidence? [Internet]. Latest updated: June 20, 2016. Available from https://www.findlaw.com/hirealawyer/choosing-the-right-lawyer/evidence-law.html
  10. ↑ Ho, Hock Lai. The Legal Concept of Evidence [Internet]. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter 2015 Edition, Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Available from https://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=evidence-legal
  11. ↑ Hayasaki, Erika. How Many of Your Memories Are Fake? [Internet]. Published on November 18, 2013. Available from https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/11/how-many-of-your-memories-are-fake/281558/
  12. ↑ Evidence (law). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_(law)#Witnesses
  13. ↑ Wolters Kluwer. Kaplan, John. Weisberg, Robert. Binder, Guyora. Criminal Law - Cases and Materials. 7th edition. 2012. ISBN 978-1-4548-0698-1
  14. ↑ Ho, Hock Lai. The Legal Concept of Evidence [Internet]. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter 2015 Edition, Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Available from https://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=evidence-legal
  15. ↑ Donald P. Lay. The Use of Real Evidence. 1958. 37 Neb. L. Rev. 501. Available from https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol37/iss3/3
  16. ↑ Getting it right, Knowledge and evidence in anthropology, Kirsten Hastrup, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, 2004 page 456, available at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1463499604047921
  17. ↑ Getting it right, Knowledge and evidence in anthropology, Kirsten Hastrup, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, 2004 page 456, available at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1463499604047921
  18. ↑ Getting it right, Knowledge and evidence in anthropology, Kirsten Hastrup, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, 2004 page 456, available at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1463499604047921
  19. ↑ Getting it right, Knowledge and evidence in anthropology, Kirsten Hastrup, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, 2004 page 456, available at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1463499604047921
  20. ↑ Getting it right, Knowledge and evidence in anthropology, Kirsten Hastrup, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, 2004 page 456, available at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1463499604047921
  21. ↑ Jenkins, Timothy D. (1994) ‘Fieldwork and the Perception of Everyday Life’, Man 29: 433–55 p443, available at https://www.jstor.org/st1?seq=2#metadata_info_tab_contenable/280448ts
  22. ↑ Hacking, Ian (1992) ‘ “Style” for Historians and Philosophers’, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 23(1): 1–20, p13, available at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/003936819290024Z
  23. ↑ Getting it right, Knowledge and evidence in anthropology, Kirsten Hastrup, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, 2004 page 456, available at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1463499604047921
  24. ↑ Getting it right, Knowledge and evidence in anthropology, Kirsten Hastrup, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, 2004 page 459, available at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1463499604047921
  25. ↑ Doing Fieldwork: Methods in Cultural Anthropology, Katie Nelson, Inver Hills community college, available at https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-culturalanthropology/chapter/fieldwork/
  26. ↑ Bates, Winston. Gross National Happiness. Asian-Pacific Economic Literature. [Internet]. 2009, Oct, 29. [cited day - 2020, Oct, 26] 23 (2). Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-8411.2009.01235.x?casa_token=vANOwmJxtDkAAAAA%3A4Vn_5aDGyol5DE47CUmL54mEk-cnUobV2LXAEfHk372Fo52BXCBPD_PbRjB0pHyobMp2xfRjjqh4Ddlllg . doi: 10.111/j.1467-8411
  27. ↑ Higgs, R. Gross Domestic Product—an Index of Economic Welfare or a Meaningless Metric? The Independent Review. [Internet]. 2015. [cited day -2020, Oct, 26] 20 (1): 153-157. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24562117
  28. ↑ Landefeld, J.S, Seskin E.P, Fraumeni B.M. Taking the Pulse of the Economy: Measuring GDP. The Journal of Economic Perspectives. [Internet]. 2008. [citd day - 2020, Oct, 26] 22 (2). Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27648248
  29. ↑ Bates, Winston. Gross National Happiness. Asian-Pacific Economic Literature. [Internet]. 2009, Oct, 29. [cited day - 2020, Oct, 26] 23 (2). Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-8411.2009.01235.x?casa_token=vANOwmJxtDkAAAAA%3A4Vn_5aDGyol5DE47CUmL54mEk-cnUobV2LXAEfHk372Fo52BXCBPD_PbRjB0pHyobMp2xfRjjqh4Ddlllg . doi: 10.111/j.1467-8411
  30. ↑ Zurick, D. Gross National Happiness and Environmental Status in Bhutan. Geographical Review. [Internet]. 2006, Oct. [cited day - 2020, Oct, 26] 96 (4): 657-681. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30034142
  31. ↑ The 9 Domains of GNH [Internet]. GNH Centre Bhutan. Available from http://www.gnhcentrebhutan.org/what-is-gnh/the-9-domains-of-gnh/
  32. ↑ Clark, J. Economic Development vs. Sustainable Societies: Reflections on the Players in a Crucial Contest. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. [Internet]. 1995. [cited day - 2020, Oct, 26]; 26: 225-248. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2097206
  33. ↑ Bates, Winston. Gross National Happiness. Asian-Pacific Economic Literature. [Internet]. 2009, Oct, 29. [cited day - 2020, Oct, 26] 23 (2). Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-8411.2009.01235.x?casa_token=vANOwmJxtDkAAAAA%3A4Vn_5aDGyol5DE47CUmL54mEk-cnUobV2LXAEfHk372Fo52BXCBPD_PbRjB0pHyobMp2xfRjjqh4Ddlllg . doi: 10.111/j.1467-8411
  34. ↑ Goggin JM. Underwater Archaeology: Its Nature and Limitations. Am Antiq [Internet]. 1960. p. 348. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/277518.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Aec5c8cb4d7350f0891a0e534dcc19e9b
  35. ↑ Bowens A. Underwater Archaeology: The NAS Guide to Principles and Practice, Second Edition [Internet]. 2009. p. 16. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781444302875
  36. ↑ Bowens A. Underwater Archaeology: The NAS Guide to Principles and Practice, Second Edition [Internet]. 2009. p. 19. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781444302875
  37. ↑ Bowens A. Underwater Archaeology: The NAS Guide to Principles and Practice, Second Edition [Internet]. 2009. p. 19-20. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781444302875
  38. ↑ Hassan FA. Sediments in archaeology: Methods and implications for palaeoenvironmental and cultural analysis. J F Archaeol [Internet]. 1978. p. 197. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/529452.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A247ae97ab8f178b1c6efffaee4eaddb6
  39. ↑ Bowens A. Underwater Archaeology: The NAS Guide to Principles and Practice, Second Edition [Internet]. 2009. p. 20. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781444302875
  40. ↑ Bowens A. Underwater Archaeology: The NAS Guide to Principles and Practice, Second Edition [Internet]. 2009. p. 20-22. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781444302875
  41. ↑ Bowens A. Underwater Archaeology: The NAS Guide to Principles and Practice, Second Edition [Internet]. 2009. p. 22. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781444302875
  42. ↑ Bowens A. Underwater Archaeology: The NAS Guide to Principles and Practice, Second Edition [Internet]. 2009. p. 66. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781444302875
  43. ↑ a b [American Psychological Association, Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice. Evidence-based practice in psychology. American Psychologist. 2006;61(4): 271-285. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.4.271.
  44. ↑ Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 1996;312(7023): 71-72. Available from: DOI:10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71.
  45. ↑ Spring B. Evidence-based practice in clinical psychology: What it is, why it matters; what you need to know. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2007;63(7): 611-631. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20373.
  46. ↑ Oxford Clinical Psychology. Standards of Evidence. 2015. Available from: https://www.oxfordclinicalpsych.com/page/Standards$0020of$0020Evidence/standards-of-evidence [Accessed 26th October 2020].
  47. ↑ Encyclopedia of Philosophy [Internet]. Pennsylvania: Humphreys J; 2013. Aristotle (384 B.C.E.—322 B.C.E.); [updated 2013 Oct; cited 2020 Oct 26]. Available from: https://iep.utm.edu/aristotl/
  48. ↑ Cambridge Dictionary [Internet]. Cambridge University Press; 2020. evidence; [cited 2020 Oct 25]. Available from: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/evidence
  49. ↑ LiveScience [Internet]. United Kingdom: Bradford A; 2017. Empirical Evidence: A Definition; 2017 Jul 28 [cited 2020 Oct 26]. Available from: https://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html
  50. ↑ Braithwaite RB, Nagel E, Popper K. Scientific method. Encyclopædia Britannica [Internet]. 2020 Jan 16 [cited 2020 Oct 26]. Available from: https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-method
  51. ↑ NASA Science [Internet]. USA: NASA; 2020. Dark Energy, Dark matter; 2020 Sept [cited 2020 Oct 26]. Available from: https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy
  52. ↑ Riess A. Dark matter. Encyclopædia Britannica [Internet]. 2017 Dec 8 [cited 2020 Oct 26]. Available from: https://www.britannica.com/science/dark-matter
  53. ↑ Hupp E, Roy S, Watzke M. NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter. NASA [Internet]. 2006 Aug 21 [cited 2020 Oct 26]; 06-297. Available from: https://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html
  54. ↑ TVRepeater, "The News is the News" title card, 15 June 1983, source: https://mytvlog.blogspot.com/2011/09/news-is-news-1983-tv-series.html, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license
  55. ↑ Claudia Mellado, Beyond Journalistic Norms: Role Performance and News in Comparative Perspective; Routledge (8 Oct. 2020); ISBN-10 : 1138388491; Link: https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=n_n1DwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT31&dq=McChesney+%26+Pickard,+2011%3B+Lewis,+2014&ots=qID4U2GafI&sig=5Vla5P9rtN4RSgCmi4bnol-1Ne4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=McChesney%20%26%20Pickard%2C%202011%3B%20Lewis%2C%202014&f=false
  56. ↑ Johannes Weber, "Strassburg, 1605: The origins of the newspaper in Europe". German History 24#3 (2006) pp: 387-412.
  57. ↑ Between the Unique and the Pattern; Anderson, CW (2015) Between the Unique and the Pattern. Digital Journalism, 3 (3). pp. 349-363. ISSN 2167-0811
  58. ↑ Sharon Hartin Iorio; Qualitative Research in Journalism: Taking It to the Streets (Routledge Communication Series) – 12 Nov. 2003; ISBN-13: 978-0805843996; Link: https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Hb2QAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=qualitative+data+in+journalism&ots=vv4HpcNoX4&sig=YWqEntRM3d4PykdM4l_TN2hw-N8&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=qualitative&f=false
  59. ↑ Nelson and Taneja 2018, The Small, Disloyal Fake News Audience: The Role of Audience Availability in Fake News Consumption, New Media & Society, DOI: 10.1177/1461444818758715, Link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322820042_The_Small_Disloyal_Fake_News_Audience_The_Role_of_Audience_Availability_in_Fake_News_Consumption ,
  60. ↑ Brian McNair; Fake News Falsehood, Fabrication, and Fantasy in Journalism; Routledge; 2017; ISBN 9781138306790
  61. ↑ Robert Hunt and Fenwick McKelvey; Algorithmic Regulation in Media and Cultural Policy: A Framework to Evaluate Barriers to Accountability; Journal of Information Policy Vol. 9 (2019), pp. 307-335; Penn State University Press
  62. ↑ Alessandro Bondielliab, Francesco Marcellonia; A survey on fake news and rumor detection techniques; Information Sciences Volume 497, September 2019, Pages 38-55
  63. ↑ Victor Pickard Robert W. McChesney; Will the Last Reporter Please Turn Out the Lights: The Collapse of Journalism and What Can Be Done to Fix It; THE NEW PRESS (19 May 2011); ISBN-10: 1595585486;
  64. ↑ How are fossils formed? [Internet]. The Australian Museum. 2020 [cited 28 October 2020]. Available from: https://australian.museum/learn/australia-over-time/fossils/how-are-fossils-formed/#:~:text=Fossils%20are%20formed%20in%20different,top%20and%20hardens%20into%20rock
  65. ↑ Locke J, Bircher P. AS biology A for OCR. 1st ed. Oxford University Press; 2015.
  66. ↑ Fossil Layers — New England Complex Systems Institute [Internet]. New England Complex Systems Institute. [cited 28 October 2020]. Available from: https://necsi.edu/fossil-layers#:~:text=When%2C%20over%20a%20long%20time,layers%20are%20on%20the%20top.
  67. ↑ Locke J, Bircher P. AS biology A for OCR. 1st ed. Oxford University Press; 2015.
  68. ↑ Ayala F et al. Evolution - The fossil record. Encyclopedia Britannica. Updated 2020 [cited 28 October 2020]. Available from: https://www.britannica.com/science/evolution-scientific-theory/The-fossil-record
  69. ↑ Cromie W. How Darwin’s finches got their beaks [Internet]. Harvard Gazette. 2006 [cited 28 October 2020]. Available from: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2006/07/how-darwins-finches-got-their-beaks/
  70. ↑ An Introduction to Behavioral economics By Alain Samson, Ph.D.https://www.behavioraleconomics.com/resources/introduction-behavioral-economics/
  71. ↑ Ariely D, Jones S. Predictably irrational. New York: Harper Audio; 2008.
  72. ↑ Robert A. Nisbet, Greenfeld L. social science | History, Disciplines, Future Development, & Facts [Internet]. Encyclopedia Britannica.oct. 16 2020 [cited 10 November 2020]. Available from: https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-science https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-science
  73. ↑ Gary Charness, Matthew Rabin, Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 117, Issue 3, August 2002, Pages 817–869, https://doi.org/10.1162/003355302760193904
Retrieved from "https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nicola.georgiou/sandbox/Approaches_to_Knowledge/Seminar_group_16/_Evidence&oldid=3768059"