Wikibooks

User:SteRos7/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/Seminar 1/Evidence

< User:SteRos7‎ | sandbox‎ | Approaches to Knowledge‎ | Seminar 1

Evidence in Decipherment

edit

Decipherment is a field that aims to discover the meaning of texts written in ancient or obscure languages. Decipherment can also refer to the decrypting of ciphers. The fields differ in that ciphers are intentionally unintelligible but generally the same decryption techniques are applicable.[1] There is no single method to deciphering a language and often a gradual build-up of evidence, found using a variety of techniques is necessary before they can be understood.

Decipherment benefits greatly from an interdisciplinary approach which can sometimes lead to issues when conflicting evidence is found. A notable example is the Mayan Script. In 1952 it was deemed a primitive forerunner to language rather than an actual language by Ignace Gelb based on phonetic principles. He concluded that the characters were symbolic glyphs and the numbers on the inscriptions were astronomical data.[2] However, in the early 1960s a historian, named Tatiana Proskouriakoff, found that the numbers coincided with the dates of accession of Mayan rulers. This new evidence renewed passion for research into Mayan civilisation and, with the additional historical context, the meaning of the inscriptions was worked out and the script was eventually deciphered.[3]

Contextual evidence

edit

Knowledge about the context within which ancient texts were written can often provide essential clues and direction and can affirm any existing attempts at translation. Jean-François Champollion did extensive study into Egyptian culture, such as its history and geography, before he began to look at hieroglyphics, eventually deciphering them in 1822.[4] Proper nouns are often the easiest words to interpret, for example the names of Ptolemy and Cleopatra on the Rosetta stone.[5]

Bilingual evidence

edit

Knowledge of other similar languages is often helpful. There are cases of translations being found such as the Rosetta stone,[6] or texts of the Phoenician language written using the Greek and Latin alphabets which served as a gateway into deciphering the language in its own script.[7] Similarities to other languages can give important information about the structure of the language. In the case of the Mycenaean language, similarities were found with the ancient Greek language and archaeological evidence showing signs of migration to mainland Greece backed this up.[8]

Statistical evidence

edit

When used in conjunction with linguistic principles, statistical information about the texts can be very useful. The number of unique characters can used to be determine whether languages are alphabetic, syllabic or logographic.[9] Another technique is frequency analysis of character positions and combinations. Alice Kober, an American classicist, worked out that linear B must be an inflected syllabic language by the frequent use of the same characters in the stems of words and managed to construct a character grid with one dimension representing vowel components and the other representing consonant components to show character similarity. This meant that when one character was eventually worked out, the rest could easily be deduced.[10] The reliability of statistical evidence grows significantly with an increase in textual data.

Evidence in Sociology

edit

As part of the human sciences, sociology draws from empirical data to justify and support its theories within the discipline; one of which is socialisation—the process of adhering to a particular society’s behaviours, norms and values[11].

Though seemingly apparent due to its initial existence and intimacy, sociological literature suggests that apart from schools and friendship groups, family plays an integral if not the most integral role in the socialisation of a child. Parents teach a child how the world works, “how to relate to others” and “how to use objects such as clothes, computers, eating utensils, books, or bikes[12]." However, the extent to which the influence of the family as an ‘agent of socialisation’ affects a child’s internalisation of their society’s social norms can be disputed. As a result, various investigations have been conducted to study the multiplicity of aspects that a family can socialise a child, to gauge its importance as an agent of socialisation[13][14].

A study by Howard E. Freeman and Morris Showel, “The Role Of The Family In The Socialisation Process”, attempted to look at the relationship between the number of siblings a person has against the desired number of children later in life[15]. The pair postulated that the number of children desired in one’s conjugal family was a direct result of socialisation from their consanguine family, hence hypothesising a direct relationship between the two variables. Their conclusion from observing the data gathered is that “there is......doubt as to the relative importance of the family” seeing that there is a “lack of correlation” between the two variables. Hence, the sociologists used it as a basis to assert a “possibility that the family has been overemphasized as an agent of socialization[16]."

The issue with their conclusion is the unreasonable extrapolation from the data. The lack of correlation between the variables could be affected by various other factors including, the wealth of the individual and their spouse, change in familial culture over time, occupation, etc[17][18]. Despite being ostensibly objective facts gathered from surveys, the evidence was used to represent the family socialisation process in a gross oversimplification, directly as a result of their postulation made early in the investigation. Consequently, it appears Freeman and Showel’s findings does not encompass and as a result adequately support their conclusion. They even go as far as to state that “more precise and adequate studies……must be designed to study the complex process of socialization[19]."

However, it is understood that unlike the natural sciences, the social sciences has a harder time controlling other variables in an investigation as human behaviour is often multi-faceted, with many interrelated factors, both external and internal affecting those being studied on. As a result, social scientists must make postulations to focus their investigation, whether they be actual or not, much like the use of ceteris paribus in economics[20].

Evidence in Theology

edit

Theology starts with ‘testimonial evidence’ – a scripture or dictate stemming from some divine origin.[21] Testimonial evidence can be used in faith-based evidence that uses faith to validate faith. This can’t be proved decisively through an empirical approach. For example, if the scripture says that God only speaks truth and that the scripture is the word of God, then this is the evidence for believing the scripture to be true. Extrabiblical evidence can complement this approach, where theological presuppositions are the basis and worked out from towards historical/archaeological evidence and these are used to justify further that, for example, God speaks only truth. Evidence for the scripture itself is material evidence, and historical evidence is used to cross reference with events/figures in a scripture to determine what occurred.[22]

Inference to the best explanation is employed across theological subdisciplines where validated evidence is used as a foundation – traditions, scriptures – and then theories are built on top to complete the picture in the most natural way e.g. interpretations in biblical theology are presented so they seem the most natural extension to the existing evidence.[23] This is a method used in natural science extensively, e.g. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution – logically he thought, how could his theory could be wrong when it fit with the existing facts, even though he couldn’t prove it yet. Often seen as a ‘working hypothesis as W. James describes it.[24]

Anecdotal evidence is the basis of many theological beliefs. This is evidence that can be hard to validate, and it often has little repeatability, meaning it is considered unreliable. In the context of personal belief in theology, we might question the need for evidence beyond a person’s experience or someone else’s experience (hearsay evidence) if that evidence is satisfactory for them – why do we need to justify a belief with conclusive evidence? Maybe theories and beliefs shouldn’t be judged by evidence but, as G. K. Chesterton put it, ‘by the amount of illumination it offers and its capacity to accommodate what we see in the world around us and experience within us.’[25]

Evidence in Evolutionary Psychology: Controversies in Understanding Human Cognition and Behaviour

edit

Evolutionary psychology became a popular field of research during the 1970s as a descendent of Sociobiology[26]. As in sociobiology, evolutionary psychology seeks to describe human behaviour through an understanding of evolutionary principles. The field itself has, however, been subject to significant criticism from related disciplines, such as human behavioural ecology, evolutionary genetics, paleoanthropology and neuroscience. Many of the criticisms from evolutionary biology are rooted in Gould and Lewontin's infamous 'Spandrels' paper, primarily a criticism of sociobiological theories which have not accounted for the role of non-selective pressures (i.e. random processes such as genetic drift) and constraints in determining the evolution of phenotypic traits. The paper has had a significant and influential effect on how research on evolution and adaptation has been conducted since[27]. Criticisms have also asserted that without strong neuroscientific evidence, evolutionary psychology simply cannot determine whether its theories reflect biological realities at all[28].

Evolutionary psychologists claim that all present-day psychological capacities are adaptations, and thus claim to be able to uncover underlying psychological mechanisms which govern human behaviour, and to be able to explain the evolutionary forces which shaped them[29][30]. Evolutionary psychology is based on the theory that human minds are made up of a range of individual, specialised and domain-specific 'modules' which have evolved over time under natural selection[31][32], in order to solve particular problems and optimise individual fitness. These modules range from mate selection to jealousy, cheater detection and others. The human mind is thus often likened to a computer, whose modules are proposed to have been selected for during the Pleistocene era, which is termed the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptation(EEA). The concept of adaptive lag between the 'EEA' and current environments is supposed to explain why adapted traits might consequently be maladaptive in modern environments[33], however, this understanding is heavily critiqued, with critics emphasising that whilst many aspects of human behaviour are constrained by ancient evolutionary history, many others have been altered since the supposed 'EEA' in response to environmental changes and thus continue to be under the influence of evolutionary pressures[34].

Many of the experiments put forward by proponents of evolutionary psychology mostly utilise lab experiments[35]. Most famous are those of Cosmides and Tooby, which have been heavily scrutinised and subject to criticism, both for their metholodologies and unfounded claims based on faulty interpretations of results[36]. Evidence has been said to be in violation of the standards of evolutionary biology[37], with none of the evidential requirements for hypotheses surrounding evolution being utilised or attempted. Associated claims have been termed ‘just-so stories’ criticised for being based on faulty a-priori reasoning in order to dismiss competing hypotheses [38]. Theories which claim that psychological and behavioural traits have been selected for directly in our evolutionary history are premised on the assumption that they are directly determined by specific genes (or networks of genes), but this is not the case - nor do they take into account the role of epigenetics, or the plasticity and flexibility of underlying mechanisms which play a role in brain development. Neurobiologists have argued that developmental plasticity is the adaptation that has been selected for, and that it is this which allows the development of domain-specific functions - the modules themselves are not the adaptation, nor are they determined solely by genes which have been selected for at some distant point in our evolutionary history[39].

Evidence in Astronomy

edit

Astronomy is the study of celestial objects and events. It is one of the first natural sciences and is split into two branches, observational and theoretical with further subfields in both. Observational is concerned with direct observations of celestial objects whilst theoretical, in contrast, is concerned with models of objects that cannot be observed. The discipline heavily relies on observational study. Historically it began with simple eyewitness methodical observations of planets and stars but has evolved as technology has allowed with telescopes and other new technological tools. Anybody who owns a telescope can find new discoveries and evidence of celestial objects.

Astronomy is disadvantaged heavily as a science because experimental evidence of the distant universe is often times not possible to obtain. In very few instances astronomers are able to obtain primary evidence in the form of physical objects such as rocks from meteorites or planets that they can use and research.[40]

However, astronomers have such a vast number of visible phenomena that can be examined which allows for the data to be collected and analysed in order to get a better understanding of them. Observational astronomy collect evidence in a variety of ways, not just phenomena visible to the naked eye. Using specific tools, astronomers detect radiation from celestial objects such as radio waves, X-Rays, and gamma rays which can be converted into an intensity map. In addition to the electromagnetic spectrum, astronomers can make observations using neutrinos, cosmic rays, and gravitational waves.[41]

Theoretical astronomy uses analytical models and computational numerical simulations to understand stellar phenomena whether that be to explain it or reveal the existence of it.[42] They predict observational consequences of the models. If results are inconsistent with the model this may lead to the abandonment of the model.[43] Einstein’s general theory of relativity is an example of a theory that for a large period of time most instruments were unable to prove as they couldn’t detect evidence of gravitational waves. In 2015, LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) detected a gravitational wave rippling through Earth providing evidence that affirmed the theory. It is a falsifiable theory that, to this day, remains highly researched and studied.[44]

Evidence in Science

edit

Science is inductive and empirical and is hence problematic by nature due to the problems of induction[45] and empiricism.[46] The scientific community hence adopts a scientific method in order to minimize these problems and ensure that science is as objective and as close to the truth as possible. If successful, this scientific method then serves as evidence of the accuracy, reliability and objectivity of the scientific knowledge.

The scientific method has been broken down into a widely accepted step-by-step process as follows:[47]

1. Define a question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form an explanatory hypothesis
4. Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
5. Analyze the data
6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

There is an iterative process from steps 3 to 6 until the hypothesis is either accepted or rejected.

Despite how watertight the scientific method sounds, there are still inherent issues within the scientific method, especially with implicit biases.

Scientists only study and experiment on what they care about, hence they bring in their own bias into observation and testing. Due to personal agendas or biases, there is also a preference for new or surprising statements different from the status quo. Hence, this can lead to searching for evidence to prove that something new is true.[48] There is also confirmation bias which will affect the interpretation of results as scientists hold pre-conceived beliefs and would want their hypothesis to be proven correct. In general, scientists also tend to look for “beautiful” or “elegant” theories.[49] However, these theories, despite being the most “beautiful” or “elegant” may not actually be right. Furthermore, scientists have pre-existing beliefs of various scientific theories. Hence, they interpret observations and data through their prior understanding of other theories and concepts (theory-laden observation).[50] Hence, conclusions drawn from such scientific processes presupposes existing scientific theories and assumes their truth and hence affects the objectivity and reliability of the conclusion.

Despite the existence of the scientific method, the scientific community does not actually observe this process (such as reproducible results).[51] Furthermore, the philosopher Karl Popper held a widely accepted belief that what differentiates Science and pseudo-science/non-science is that scientific theories must be able to be falsified.[52] Falsifiability as a criterion preserves the objectivity of science and scientists should seek to disprove theories rather than continuously try to prove them. However, scientists, who have implicit biases, tend to be reluctant to give up theories even if they have been falsified.[53] Science is also heavily dependent on statistics, which poses its own set of problems as well (e.g. flawed/biased experimental design, misleading statistics, etc).[54] Statistical evidence is often “misused, misinterpreted, or misunderstood”[55] in Science.

These show the problems of evidence within the scientific world. Despite the impression that scientific knowledge is the most reliable and objective, there are many issues with scientific evidence that must be improved upon.

Evidence in Economics

edit

Evidence in economics pursues a specific process; first of all, they create theories relying on real-life observations that lead to predictions that they confirm or not through experiments.

Indeed, economics is a discipline that relies heavily on models to explain the social phenomenons and elucidate the workings of a complicated system. These models allows a comparative and complementary approach that helps to see how those theories develop in natural sciences. A model is a simplified representation of reality. However, there is no guarantee that those models reflect perfectly the reality. The economy generates predictions that can be tested empirically. However, it does not have an empirical foundation; it is based on universal human nature. They develop forecasts on a wide variety of issues, including energy costs, inflation, interest rates, exchange rates, business cycles, taxes, and employment levels, among others. Evidence in economics relies on theory similarly to biology where theory is taken to be a model, a collection of models, or a modelling approach. However, the main problem of those models is that as it is derived from assumptions and axioms rather than real-life observations, it does not systematically reflect reality.

Furthermore, evidence in economics can also be found in empirical tests, including historic experimentation, on-site experimentation and laboratory experimentation. The first one consists of quantification by analyzing data in the past. The on-site experimentation entails collecting evidence on-site by analyzing the interactions in a specific real situation. Then, the last one known as controlled experiments involves setting up an economic environment under laboratory conditions and testing the individual's choices in this specific situation to analyze if the predictions are confirmed.

Finally, econometrics is greatly used in this discipline to get evidence. This method relies on data collection and analysis. Few methods to collect data exist. For example, sampling techniques may be used to conduct a survey and also mathematical modelling techniques. Once they collected the data they needed, they prepare reports including tables and charts to put on display evidence on economic phenomena. This method relies on statistical data to improve the analysis and allow to bring out economic laws or constant relations from those results. Economics is a discipline relying on a different source of evidence to understand and predicts as well as possible those complicated economic mechanisms.

Evidence in History

edit

There is one peculiarity of the role of evidence in the study of history that must be understood, owing to its nature as the study of the past – once a piece of evidence is forgotten and destroyed, it is gone forever, as it is not replicable. If all knowledge and evidence in the field of chemistry suddenly ceased to exist tomorrow, our knowledge of chemistry would eventually be able to reconstruct itself in a recognisable form. This is because chemists in the 17th century and in this hypothetical 2020 conducting the same experiments would produce the same findings – science is meant to be replicable.[56] If the same were to happen to the field of history, historians would never be able to recover our knowledge of the past.

There are many examples of such lost evidence that can never be replicated. For instance, we know very little of the Kalabhra period of India, as little evidence from the time period has survived.[57] Most of what we do know is from secondary sources writing long after the Kalabhra dynasty had fallen. We know so little that even when the dynasty fell is not unanimously agreed upon, with some placing it in the 5th century and others in the 4th century.[58][59]

Another interesting question this example raises is about the role of secondary, noncontemporary written sources as evidence. Such written sources contribute in large part to our historical knowledge. Almost no contemporary writings on Alexander the Great have survived, so almost all our knowledge on him comes from historians writing on him centuries after his death, such as Arrian of Nicomedia.[60] Many of these sources document their own sources and are thus considered reliable, though the original sources are now lost.[60]In this sense, our body of historical knowledge in many areas is comprised of evidence upon evidence. It is impossible to know for certain if there were inaccuracies in the original sources that have been passed on to the present day, as in a game of Chinese whispers. In such cases, historians can only compare the written evidence to any available material evidence and make the best reasonable guess.

Of course, this does not mean that history is somehow a less valid, reliable or rigorous discipline than others. Different disciplines necessarily demand different standards of evidence based on what evidence is possible and reasonable to obtain. While evidence in history is generally not as airtight as evidence in, say, physics, we should compare apples to apples. There are still stringent standards for evidence within history that ensure the quality of the discipline.[61]

Evidence in Evolutionary Biology

edit

Evolutionary biology is the study of the Evolution of live species through time. How did all the species present in the moment on Earth came to exist? How do we, humans, exist? It is a complicated subject that has been debated a lot over the centuries.

In 1859, Charles Darwin was the first to propose a model to explain Evolution, natural selection. ‘It is the process that results in the continued existence of only types of animals and plants that are best able to produce young or new plants in the conditions in which they live.’[62] For example, cactuses survive in a dry and arid environment especially the desert where other plants like roses that need more water could not. Through the years, a lot of evidence was found:

Direct Evidence: We see today that some species are evolving to counteract adversities that threaten their existence: for example, some insects can now resist insecticides because only the resistant ones made it through and then procreated to build a new generation of insects that could entirely resist.

Forensic Evidence: The DNA analysis on skeletons that were found by archeologs through the centuries show that a lot of DNA present millions of years ago in some species still exists in actual species. For example, Ardi is the the most ancient human structured body characteristics found and was dated 4.4 millions years ago.

Presumptive Evidence: In Anatomy, some species share the same body structure, with the same bones and articulations: for example, humans’ and gorillas’ bodies are quite similar, suggesting that they have a common ancestor.


Evidence in Law

edit

Evidence is the branch of the law which stipulates how issues can be proved in court. [63]. In law, there is the law of evidence to regulates what evidence can be legitimately put before a court and taken into consideration , which is often seen as one of the most complicated subjects in undergraduate law courses. [64].

If evidence is to be admissible, two things are required. First, it must be relevant. It is not easy to define relevance. The leading textbook suggests that in "very general terms relevant evidence may be said to be evidence which is logically connected with those matters in dispute between the parties". [65]. It can be distinguished between two types of relevance, namely direct and indirect. Direct evidence is "evidence of the fact in issue itself", [66]., and the indirect evidence is the evidence that "might lead or help lean us to the conclusion that the fact has or has not been proven". [67]. The second thing for evidence to be admissible is the evidence must not be prohibited by any exclusionary rule.[68].

The evidence can also be classified into three types, namely oral evidence, which is oral statements of a witness in court, real evidence, which is a thing or item and documentary evidence, which are lodged in court as productions. [69]. [70].

It is worth noticing that the law of evidence is not the same among civil and criminal cases, with stricter standards applied in the criminal cases, which is due to the public attention to protecting the accused from wrong conviction. [71].

It is also worth noticing that the concept of evidence and the law of evidence are not static or universal. For example, no approach to evidence is shared by all legal systems at all times. [72].While criminal cases require enough evidence to exclude all the reasonable doubts in common-law countries, there was seldom distinctions between civil and criminal cases in ancient times.[73]. The appeal to supernatural power is not accepted as evidence in modern law, but it was accepted in some areas in medieval times.[74].

Notes

edit
  1. ↑ I. J. Gelb (1975). Methods of Decipherment. p. 95. Retrieved 21 October 2020 from https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25203647.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A288df88e22a57bb8f32eeeb2e834289b
  2. ↑ I. J. Gelb (1975). Methods of Decipherment. p. 103. Retrieved 21 October 2020 from https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25203647.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A288df88e22a57bb8f32eeeb2e834289b
  3. ↑ Norman Hammond (1993). Reviewed Work: Breaking the Maya Code by Michael D. Coe. p. 234. Retrieved 21 October from https://www.jstor.org/stable/529958?seq=3#metadata_info_tab_contents
  4. ↑ I. J. Gelb (1975). Methods of Decipherment. p. 99. Retrieved 21 October 2020 from https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25203647.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A288df88e22a57bb8f32eeeb2e834289b
  5. ↑ E. A. Wallis Budge (2015, April 6). The Rosetta Stone. Section 4. Retrieved 21 October 2020 from https://www.gutenberg.org/files/48649/48649-h/48649-h.htm
  6. ↑ E. A. Wallis Budge (2015, April 6). The Rosetta Stone. Section 3. Retrieved 21 October 2020 from https://www.gutenberg.org/files/48649/48649-h/48649-h.htm
  7. ↑ I. J. Gelb (1975). Methods of Decipherment. p. 97. Retrieved 21 October 2020 from https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25203647.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A288df88e22a57bb8f32eeeb2e834289b
  8. ↑ John Chadwick (1958). The Decipherment of Linear B. Section XXIX. Retrieved 21 October 2020 from https://archive.org/stream/MichaelVentrisJohnChadwickDocumentsInMYCENAEANGREEKIlovepdfCompressed/Michael_Ventris%2C__John_Chadwick%5D_Documents_in_MYCENAEAN%20GREEK-ilovepdf-compressed_djvu.txt
  9. ↑ I. J. Gelb (1975). Methods of Decipherment. p. 97. Retrieved 21 October 2020 from https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25203647.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A288df88e22a57bb8f32eeeb2e834289b
  10. ↑ John Chadwick (1958). The Decipherment of Linear B (Cambridge summary). p. 4. Retrieved 21 October 2020 from https://www.classics.cam.ac.uk/pdfs/mycep/process.pdf
  11. ↑ The Process of Socialisation [Internet]. BLAD AS Sociology. Pearson School And FE Colleges; [cited 2020Oct22]. Available from: https://www.pearsonschoolsandfecolleges.co.uk/Secondary/SocialScience/Sociology/ASandA2OCRSociology/Samples/ASStudentBookSamplePages/BLAD_AS_Sociology_p4_6.pdf
  12. ↑ Learning L. Introduction to Sociology [Internet]. Lumen. [cited 2020Oct23]. Available from: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wmopen-introtosociology/chapter/agents-of-socialization/
  13. ↑ Freeman HE, Showel M. The Role of the Family in the Socialization Process [Internet]. Taylor & Francis. [cited 2020Oct23]. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1953.9921873?casa_token=HC4J0D-gmpUAAAAA:q9-omy8d95T1ernwKNSZL2gucuJ3IPsNtKnMjQqJhGIBwJNo8JEmgKSaQbJOCWpnK_-_uIm_DtL7aw&journalCode=vsoc20
  14. ↑ Baferani MH. [Internet]. The Role of the Family in the Socialization of Children. ResearchGate; 2015 [cited 2020Oct21]. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290977267_The_Role_of_the_Family_in_the_Socialization_of_Children
  15. ↑ Freeman HE, Showel M. The Role of the Family in the Socialization Process [Internet]. Taylor & Francis. [cited 2020Oct23]. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1953.9921873?casa_token=HC4J0D-gmpUAAAAA:q9-omy8d95T1ernwKNSZL2gucuJ3IPsNtKnMjQqJhGIBwJNo8JEmgKSaQbJOCWpnK_-_uIm_DtL7aw&journalCode=vsoc20
  16. ↑ Freeman HE, Showel M. The Role of the Family in the Socialization Process [Internet]. Taylor & Francis. [cited 2020Oct23]. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1953.9921873?casa_token=HC4J0D-gmpUAAAAA:q9-omy8d95T1ernwKNSZL2gucuJ3IPsNtKnMjQqJhGIBwJNo8JEmgKSaQbJOCWpnK_-_uIm_DtL7aw&journalCode=vsoc20
  17. ↑ Learning L. Introduction to Sociology [Internet]. Lumen. [cited 2020Oct23]. Available from: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wmopen-introtosociology/chapter/agents-of-socialization/
  18. ↑ G M, B D. [Internet]. Factors Influencing Desired Family Size among Residents of Assela Town. Journal Of Women's Health Care; 2016 [cited 2020Oct23]. Available from: https://www.longdom.org/open-access/factors-influencing-desired-family-size-among-residents-of-assela-town-2167-0420-1000342.pdf
  19. ↑ Freeman HE, Showel M. The Role of the Family in the Socialization Process [Internet]. Taylor & Francis. [cited 2020Oct23]. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1953.9921873?casa_token=HC4J0D-gmpUAAAAA:q9-omy8d95T1ernwKNSZL2gucuJ3IPsNtKnMjQqJhGIBwJNo8JEmgKSaQbJOCWpnK_-_uIm_DtL7aw&journalCode=vsoc20
  20. ↑ Blink J, Dorton I. The Foundation of Economics. Economics Course Companion Second Edition. Oxford; p. 8.
  21. ↑ Dougherty T. Evidence and Theology. In: Abraham W J. and Aquino F D, editors. The Oxford Handbook of the Epistemology of Theology. Oxford University Press; 2017. p. 1-18.
  22. ↑ Gibson D. For the Bible tells me so? The roles of faith and evidence in believing the Bible [Internet]. 2003. [Accessed 22nd October 2020]; Available at: https://www.uniontheology.org/resources/bible/biblical-theology/for-the-bible-tells-me-so-the-roles-of-faith-and-evidence-in-believing-the-bible.
  23. ↑ Dougherty T. Evidence and Theology. In: Abraham W J. and Aquino F D, editors. The Oxford Handbook of the Epistemology of Theology. Oxford University Press; 2017. p. 1-18.
  24. ↑ McGrath A. Faith, Proof and Evidence: What’s right to think? [Lecture]. Barnard’s Inn Hall. 24 November 2015.
  25. ↑ McGrath A. Faith, Proof and Evidence: What’s right to think? [Lecture]. Barnard’s Inn Hall. 24 November 2015.
  26. ↑ Driscoll, Catherine. ""Sociobiology"". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 21 October 2015.
  27. ↑ Pigliucci, M. and Kaplan, J. (2000). "'The fall and rise of Dr Pangloss: adaptationism and the Spandrels paper 20 years later'". Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 15 (2): 66–70. Retrieved 23 October 2020.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  28. ↑ Panksepp, J. and Panksepp, J.B. (2000). "The Seven Sins of Evolutionary Psychology". Evolution and Cognition. 6 (2): 108–130.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  29. ↑ Sheldon Davies, P (2009). "Some evolutionary model or other: Aspirations and evidence in evolutionary psychology". Philosophical Psychology. 22 (1): 83–97. Retrieved 22 October 2020.
  30. ↑ Lloyd, Elizabeth (1999). "Evolutionary Psychology: The Burdens of Proof". Biology and Philosophy. 14: 211–233.
  31. ↑ Sheldon Davies, Paul (2009). "Some evolutionary model or another: Aspirations and evidence in evolutionary psychology". Philosophical Psychology. 22 (1): 83–97. Retrieved 23 October 2020.
  32. ↑ Griffiths, P.E. (2006). "Ethology, Sociobiology, and Evolutionary Psychology". Pre-print.
  33. ↑ Smith, E. A., Mulder, M.B., Hill, K. (2001). "Controversies in the evolutionary social sciences: a guide for the perplexed". Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 6 (3): 128–135. Retrieved 22 October 2020.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  34. ↑ Richerson, P. "What was the EEA Really Like?". SSRN. Retrieved 24 October 2020.
  35. ↑ Smith, E. A., Mulder, M.B., Hill, K. (2001). "Controversies in the evolutionary social sciences: a guide for the perplexed". Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 6 (3): 128–135. Retrieved 22 October 2020.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  36. ↑ Lloyd, Elizabeth (1999). "Evolutionary Pscyhology: The Burdens of Proof". Biology and Philosophy. 14: 211–233.
  37. ↑ Grossi, G., Kelly, S., Nash, A., Parameswaran, G. (2014). "Challenging dangerous ideas: a multi-disciplinary critique of evolutionary psychology". Dialectical Anthropology. 38: 281–285.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  38. ↑ Lloyd, Elizabeth (1999). "Evolutionary Pscyhology: The Burdens of Proof". Biology and Philosophy. 14: 211–233.
  39. ↑ Buller, D.J., and Hardcastle, V. (2000). "Evolutionary Psychology, Meet Developmental Neurobiology: Against Promiscuous Modularity". Brain and Mind. 1 (3): 307–325. Retrieved 22 October 2020.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  40. ↑ Impey, C., 2020. Evidence. [online] Teach Astronomy - Evidence. Available at: <https://www.teachastronomy.com/textbook/How-Science-Works/Evidence/> [Accessed 20 October 2020].
  41. ↑ "Electromagnetic Spectrum". NASA. Archived from the original on 5 September 2006.
  42. ↑ Roth, H. (1932). "A Slowly Contracting or Expanding Fluid Sphere and its Stability". Physical Review. 39 (3): 525–29.
  43. ↑ Eddington, A.S. (1926). Internal Constitution of the Stars. Science. 52. Cambridge University Press. pp. 233–40.
  44. ↑ LIGO Lab | Caltech. 2016. Gravitational Waves Detected 100 Years After Einstein's Prediction. [online] Available at: <https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211> [Accessed 20 October 2020].
  45. ↑ 1. Anderson H, Hepburn B. The Problem of Induction (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) [Internet]. Plato.stanford.edu. 2018 [cited 26 October 2020]. Available from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/#HumeProb
  46. ↑ 2. Benjamin A. Volume Information. Philosophy of Science [Internet]. 1943;10(1). Available from: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/286787?journalCode=phos#:~:text=The%20essential%20problem%20of%20empiricism%20is%20precisely%20that%20of%20drawing,that%20the%20list%20is%20exhaustive.
  47. ↑ 3. Crawford S, Stucki L. Peer review and the changing research record. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 1990;41(3):223-228.
  48. ↑ 4. Goldhaber A, Nieto M. Photon and graviton mass limits. Reviews of Modern Physics. 2010;82(1):939-979.
  49. ↑ 5. Baker A. Simplicity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) [Internet]. Plato.stanford.edu. 2016 [cited 26 October 2020]. Available from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/
  50. ↑ 6. Bogen J. Theory and Observation in Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) [Internet]. Plato.stanford.edu. 2017 [cited 26 October 2020]. Available from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/science-theory-observation/#HowObsEviMigTheLad0
  51. ↑ 7. Ioannidis J. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. CHANCE. 2005;18(4):40-47.
  52. ↑ 8. Thornton S. Karl Popper (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) [Internet]. Plato.stanford.edu. 2018 [cited 26 October 2020]. Available from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
  53. ↑ 9. Mcleod S. Karl Popper - Theory of Falsification | Simply Psychology [Internet]. Simplypsychology.org. 2017 [cited 26 October 2020]. Available from: https://www.simplypsychology.org/Karl-Popper.html#:~:text=The%20Falsification%20Principle%2C%20proposed%20by,by%20observing%20a%20black%20swan.
  54. ↑ 10. F. Taflinger R. The Problems with Statistics [Internet]. Public.wsu.edu. 1996 [cited 26 October 2020]. Available from: https://public.wsu.edu/~taflinge/evistats.html
  55. ↑ 11. Siegfried T. Science’s Significant Stats Problem [Internet]. Nautilus. 2013 [cited 26 October 2020]. Available from: http://nautil.us/issue/4/the-unlikely/sciences-significant-stats-problem
  56. ↑ Miceli, S. (2019). Reproducibility and Replicability in Research. The National Academies in Focus, 18(1), 12-14.
  57. ↑ Darley, R. (2019). Ray, H.P. (ed.). Negotiating Cultural Identity: Landscapes in Early Medieval South Asian History (pp. 76-77). Taylor & Francis.
  58. ↑ Singh, U. (2019). A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century (pp. 557-558). Pearson.
  59. ↑ Alchin, F. R. (2020, November 04). India. In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved November 07, 2020, from https://www.britannica.com/place/India/The-Shunga-kingdom#ref46870
  60. ↑ a b Green, P. (2008). Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic Age (pp. 22-28). Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
  61. ↑ Kaestle, C. F. (1992). Standards of Evidence in Historical Research: How Do We Know When We Know? History of Education Quarterly, 32(3), 361. doi:10.2307/368550
  62. ↑ https://dictionary.cambridge.org/fr/dictionnaire/anglais/natural-selection
  63. ↑ Chalmers, J. (2012) Evidence Essentials. 3rd edn. pp. 1-6. Dundee: Dundee University Press. doi:10.3366/j.ctt1g09xvk.5
  64. ↑ Maureen Spencer and John Spencer (2018) Concentrate Questions and Answers Evidence: Law Q&A Revision and Study Guide. 2nd edn. doi:10.1093/he/9780198819905.001.0001.
  65. ↑ Ross, M.L. and Chalmers, J. (2009) Walker and Walker: the Law of Evidence in Scotland. 3rd edn. West Sussex: Tottel Publishing.
  66. ↑ Chalmers, J. (2012) Evidence Essentials. 3rd edn. pp. 1-6. Dundee: Dundee University Press. doi:10.3366/j.ctt1g09xvk.5
  67. ↑ Chalmers, J. (2012) Evidence Essentials. 3rd edn. pp. 1-6. Dundee: Dundee University Press. doi:10.3366/j.ctt1g09xvk.5
  68. ↑ Chalmers, J. (2012) Evidence Essentials. 3rd edn. pp. 1-6. Dundee: Dundee University Press. doi:10.3366/j.ctt1g09xvk.5
  69. ↑ Chalmers, J. (2012) Evidence Essentials. 3rd edn. pp. 1-6. Dundee: Dundee University Press. doi:10.3366/j.ctt1g09xvk.5
  70. ↑ Laver, N. Evidence: Types of evidence Admissible in a Law Court. Available at: https://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/evidence/ (Aceessed: 9 Novermber 2020).
  71. ↑ Chalmers, J. (2012) Evidence Essentials. 3rd edn. pp. 1-6. Dundee: Dundee University Press. doi:10.3366/j.ctt1g09xvk.5
  72. ↑ Ho, H.L. (2015), 'The Legal Concept of Evidence', in Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2015/entries/evidence-legal/ (Accessed: 9 November 2020).
  73. ↑ Norton, J. and Nagel, H. (2011) Evidence. Available at:https://www.britannica.com/topic/evidence-law (Accessed: 9 November 2020).
  74. ↑ Norton, J. and Nagel, H. (2011) Evidence. Available at:https://www.britannica.com/topic/evidence-law (Accessed: 9 November 2020).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=User:SteRos7/sandbox/Approaches_to_Knowledge/Seminar_1/Evidence&oldid=3767706"