Standards Of Evidence Research Articles

An integrative paradigm for building causal knowledge

AbstractA core aspiration of the ecological sciences is to determine how systems work, which implies the challenge of developing a causal understanding. Causal inference has long been approached from a statistical perspective, which can be limited and restrictive for a variety of reasons. Ecologists and other natural scientists have historically pursued mechanistic knowledge as an alternative approach to causal understanding, though without explicit reference to the requirements of causal statistics. In this paper, I describe the premises of an expanded paradigm for causal studies, the Integrative Causal Investigation Paradigm, that subsumes causal statistics and mechanistic investigation into a multi‐evidence approach. This paradigm is distinct from the one articulated by causal statistics in that it (1) focuses its attention on the long‐term goal of building causal knowledge across multiple studies and (2) recognizes the essential role of mechanistic investigations in establishing a causal understanding. The Integrative Paradigm, consequentially, proposes that there are multiple methodological routes to building causal knowledge and thus represents a pluralistic perspective. This paper begins by describing the crux of the problem faced by causal statistics. To understand this problem, it should be recognized that the word causal has multiple meanings and a variety of evidential standards. An expanded vocabulary is developed so as to reduce ambiguities and clarify critical issues. I further show by example that there is an important ingredient typically omitted from consideration in causal statistics, which is the known information related to the mechanisms underlying relationships being evaluated. To address this issue, I describe a procedure, Causal Knowledge Analysis, that involves an evaluation and compilation of existing evidence indicative of causal content and the features of mechanisms. Causal Knowledge Analysis is applied to three example situations to illustrate the process and its potential for contributing to the development of causal knowledge. The implications of adopting the proposed paradigm and associated procedures are discussed and include the potential for advancing ecology, the potential for clarifying causal methodology, and the potential for contributing to predictive forecasting.

Proof in Dutch Administrative Law

The law of proof and evidence in Dutch administrative law is founded on a theory of free evidence. Over the years, evidential standards have been derived from general principles of sound administration, such as the duty of due care and the duty to give reasons. A flexible system of proof is the result, aptly tailored to the circumstances of the case. This article focuses on the dynamics of the law of proof and evidence in the Netherlands and aims to offer a perspective on future challenges and expected developments. It is argued that evidential norms have become more explicit and precise on the one hand, while at the same time being deformalised. Dutch administrative law courts are increasingly focusing on standards that offer citizens safeguards in fact finding. Evidential norms should increase the quality of fact finding, protect citizens from an over-intrusive administrative state and compensate for an inequality of arms. Over the past few years, courts have worked on effective options for litigants to adduce evidence in appeal. Most recently, the government has published a bill strengthening this evidentiary position by introducing a specific procedural instrument known as the ‘citizen loop’. These developments are bolstered by European case law, which asks for enhanced human rights protection and effective legal protection.

Crime and Sanctions: Beyond Sanctions as a Foreign Policy Tool

AbstractTargeted sanctions, namely asset freezes and travel bans, are no longer the province of foreign policy alone. They are increasingly often used by governments in response to crime, such as corruption, human rights abuse, cybercrime, drug trafficking, and transnational organized crime writ large. Such sanctions are imposed based on permissive evidential standards, such as that of “credible evidence” or “reasonable grounds to suspect.” Their advent has added a new layer to a multi-tier system of state responses to crime. First, there is the traditional approach of criminal prosecution and conviction based on the criminal standard of proof. Second, one rung below is non-conviction based asset forfeiture, a notionally civil confiscation of supposed proceeds of crime that eschews the need for compliance with a suite of criminal trial safeguards. At the third level of this hierarchy are crime-based targeted sanctions, which vest the state with the greatest latitude in dealing with suspected criminals. Based on a wide-ranging analysis of international practice, this article contends that not only are crime-based sanctions de facto a criminal justice tool, but also that a coherent set of principles is required to determine their relationship with other responses to criminal behavior.

“Belief” and Belief

AbstractOur interest in understanding belief stems partly from our being creatures who think. However, the term ‘belief’ is used to refer to many states: from the fully conscious rational state that partly constitutes knowledge to the fanciful states of alarm clocks. Which of the many ‘belief’ states must a theory of belief be answerable to? This is the scope question. I begin my answer with a reply to a recent argument that belief is invariably weak, i.e., that the evidential standards that are required for belief are low. Although one state we refer to using the term ‘belief’ fits this profile, other ‘belief’ states do not. Crucially, when ‘belief’ is heard in a weak sense, it attributes a state that only a rational creature can be in. I will use this observation as a starting point for an argument that the study of (our) belief should not be constrained by the requirement that the illuminated state be held in common with any non‐rational being. This lends support to the Transformative Theory of Rationality, according to which rationality does not merely add powers or complexity to the animal mind, but transforms it into a different kind of mind altogether.

The search for evidence-based features of effective teacher professional development: a critical analysis of the literature

ABSTRACT Scholarly efforts to identify core design features for effective teacher professional development have grown rapidly in the last 25 years. Many concise lists of design principles have emerged, most of which converge on a consensus of 5–7 presumably ‘effective’ features (e.g. collaborative tasks, active learning, focus on content). The proliferation and convergence of reviews create the impression that this consensus is based on strong evidence from large-scale, replicated, and rigorously controlled research studies. We critique the empirical foundation on which conclusions about evidence-based design features for teacher professional development have been based, by the same evidential standards that have been adopted within this field of scholarly work. We conclude that the empirical foundations for these lists are problematic and that claims to methodological rigour are misleading as they are based on flawed inferences. We further argue that the ambition to identify general features of effective professional development is also problematic, and reflect on why, despite its weaknesses and potentially adverse consequences for research and practice, we as a field continue to herald this consensus. We call for greater focus on the development, testing, and refinement of theories about teacher professional learning in order to advance understanding, policy, and practice in the field.

Competing Imaginaries and Partisan Divides in the Data Rhetoric of Advocacy Organizations

Data are wielded to shape public opinion, particularly in electoral contexts where the role and veracity of information is questioned. This post-truth era is characterized by world events in which facts too often are obfuscated and evidential standards are abandoned. To study how data are used to influence pressing and divisive contemporary issues, this paper explores the rhetorical work that quantitative data are doing through the blogging practices of advocacy organizations during the highly-polarized month preceding the 2016 United States elections. We present results of a qualitative content analysis of the quantitative data used in 337 blog posts published by five pairs of conservative and liberal advocacy organizations over the course of the month leading up to the 2016 US elections. We identify key data rhetoric practices along partisan lines and contribute an analytic framework-evaluating ethos, pathos, and logos- that can be used to analyze the rhetorical use of data in other contexts. We then characterize two different imaginaries that come into conflict in this research: 1) the political imaginaries being promoted through organizational blogging and 2) the sociotechnical imaginary of the data economy, foregrounding differences in the epistemic value of data in each. We conclude by outlining research challenges and trajectories for future research within each of the two imaginaries of data.

Varying Evidential Standards as a Matter of Justice

Varying Evidential Standards as a Matter of Justice

Norms of evidence in the classification of living fossils

Some species have held fast for millions of years as constants in a changing world. Often called “living fossils,” these species capture scientific and public interest by showing us the vestiges of an earlier world. If living fossils are defined by a holistic pattern of low evolutionary rates or stasis, however, then classifying a species as a living fossil involves the application of sophisticated norms of scientific evidence. Using examples from Crocodilia and the tuatara (Sphenodon punctatus), I show how scientists’ evidential criteria for classifying living fossils are contentious and underspecified in many cases, threatening the concept’s explanatory interest and its adequacy for sustaining a collective problem agenda as proposed by Scott Lidgard and Alan Love. While debates over the definition of the living fossil concept may appear fruitless, I suggest they can be productive insofar as the debate leads to clarified and improved evidential standards for classification. To this end, I formulate a view of the living fossil concept as an investigative kind, and compare two theoretical frameworks as a basis for shared evidential norms: the Zero Force Evolutionary Law framework, introduced by Daniel McShea and Robert Brandon, and the statistical model selection framework first developed by Gene Hunt in the 2000s.

The East African Court of Justice: Weaving Jurisprudential Pathways, 2012–20

A reading of the decisions of the East African Court of Justice delivered during its early years portrays an orientation towards the application of common law doctrines. This is not surprising given that the initial litigants, legal Counsel and Judges originated from countries with legal systems sourced from common law; and so, they relied on judicial precedents of national courts and the Court’s predecessor, the Court of Appeal for East Africa. For over a decade now, there’s been a shift as the Court has charted a jurisprudential path reflecting its international character. This paper considers some of the decisions of the Appellate Division which have espoused the primacy of public international law principles and legal instruments; and the inspiration drawn from the jurisprudence of other international and regional courts in interpreting and applying the East African Community Treaty. Over the years, the Court has continued to uphold deference for rule of law, jurisdictional, procedural and evidential standards in the administration of justice and applied the seldom used dissenting opinion mechanism where necessary.

Epistemic Democracy: Making Pluralism Productive

AbstractWhat, if anything, is the import of Hayek to epistemic democracy? Although Hayek is revered by epistemic democrats for his insights into the epistemic aspects of the market sphere, it is generally believed that his theory is moot with respect to democratic reason. This paper aims to challenge this verdict. I argue that a Hayekian analysis of inclusive public deliberation contributes at least three valuable lessons: (1) Hayek makes the case that under certain conditions even unbiased deliberators are permanently unable to converge on the best available policy option. Call this the problem of ‘persistent hidden policy champions’. (2) He demonstrates that to unlock hidden policy champions, reasonable minority factions need the opportunity to act on their own evidential standards. (3) He challenges epistemic democrats to think more carefully about how to design the “epistemic basic structure” (Kurtulmus and Irzik 2017) of society in order to account for persistent hidden policy champions.

Inconvenient Truth and Inductive Risk in Covid-19 Science

To clarify the proper role of values in science, focusing on controversial expert responses to Covid-19, this article examines the status of (in)convenient hypotheses. Polarizing cases like health experts downplaying mask efficacy to save resources for healthcare workers, or scientists dismissing “accidental lab leak” hypotheses in view of potential xenophobia, plausibly involve modifying evidential standards for (in)convenient claims. Societies could accept that scientists handle (in)convenient claims just like nonscientists, and give experts less political power. Or societies could hold scientists to a higher bar, by expecting them not to modify evidential standards to avoid costs only incidentally tied to error.

What Is It Like to Be a Bass? Red Herrings, Fish Pain and the Study of Animal Sentience.

Debates around fishes' ability to feel pain concern sentience: do reactions to tissue damage indicate evaluative consciousness (conscious affect), or mere nociception? Thanks to Braithwaite's research leadership, and concerns that current practices could compromise welfare in countless fish, this issue's importance is beyond dispute. However, nociceptors are merely necessary, not sufficient, for true pain, and many measures held to indicate sentience have the same problem. The question of whether fish feel pain – or indeed anything at all – therefore stimulates sometimes polarized debate. Here, we try to bridge the divide. After reviewing key consciousness concepts, we identify “red herring” measures that should not be used to infer sentience because also present in non-sentient organisms, notably those lacking nervous systems, like plants and protozoa (P); spines disconnected from brains (S); decerebrate mammals and birds (D); and humans in unaware states (U). These “S.P.U.D. subjects” can show approach/withdrawal; react with apparent emotion; change their reactivity with food deprivation or analgesia; discriminate between stimuli; display Pavlovian learning, including some forms of trace conditioning; and even learn simple instrumental responses. Consequently, none of these responses are good indicators of sentience. Potentially more valid are aspects of working memory, operant conditioning, the self-report of state, and forms of higher order cognition. We suggest new experiments on humans to test these hypotheses, as well as modifications to tests for “mental time travel” and self-awareness (e.g., mirror self-recognition) that could allow these to now probe sentience (since currently they reflect perceptual rather than evaluative, affective aspects of consciousness). Because “bullet-proof” neurological and behavioral indicators of sentience are thus still lacking, agnosticism about fish sentience remains widespread. To end, we address how to balance such doubts with welfare protection, discussing concerns raised by key skeptics in this debate. Overall, we celebrate the rigorous evidential standards required by those unconvinced that fish are sentient; laud the compassion and ethical rigor shown by those advocating for welfare protections; and seek to show how precautionary principles still support protecting fish from physical harm.

Value Promotion and the Explanation of Evidential Standards

While it is commonly accepted that justified beliefs must be strongly supported by evidence and that support comes in degrees, the question of how much evidential support one needs in order to have a justified belief remains. In this paper, I consider how the question about degrees of evidential support connects with recent debates between consequentialist and deontological explanations of epistemic norms. I argue that explaining why strong, but not conclusive, evidential support is required for justification should be one explanandum that such theories seek to explain. Furthermore, I argue that foundational theories that appeal to the promotion of epistemic value (especially consequentialism, but perhaps also some versions of epistemic deontology) are better suited to provide such an explanation.

Perspectives on Challenges to Cell Therapy Development in Taiwan: Strengthening Evidential Standards and Ways Forward.

Over the past years, the field of regenerative medicine and cell therapy has garnered much interest, extending beyond the bench to broader use, and commercialization. These therapies undergo stringent regulatory oversight as a result of their complexities and potential risk across different jurisdictions. Taiwan’s government, with the aim of developing the country as a hub for regenerative medicine in Asia, enacted a dual track act to promote the development of regenerative and cell therapy products. This qualitative study used purposive sampling to recruit sixteen experts (Twelve respondents from medical institutions and four respondents from the industry) to understand their perspectives on one of the regulatory tracks which governs the medical use of cell technologies and challenges regarding its implementation. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, transcribed, coded and thematically analyzed. Three major themes emerged from the analysis: 1) Perceptions of the “Special Regulation for Cell Therapy” 2) Emerging issues and controversies on the medical use of cell technologies in private clinics, and 3) Challenges impeding the clinical innovation of cell technologies. As reported by the experts, it was clear that the special regulation for cell therapy was aimed at legalizing the clinical use of cell therapy in a similar fashion to an evidence-based pathway, to promote clinical innovation, ensure manufacturing consistency, and improve oversight on cell-based therapies. Thus, the regulation addresses the issues of safety concerns, patient’s access and stem cell tourism. However, the limited approved cell techniques, quality control during cell processing, time, and criteria used in evaluating applications in addition to the need to develop evidential standards for clinical evidence are some of the difficulties faced. Thus, policy interventions on funding, educational resources, training, and regulatory clarity addressing these challenges may positively impact clinical innovation of cell therapy in Taiwan.

Aesthetic Understanding and Epistemic Agency in Art

Abstract Recently, cognitivist accounts about art have come under pressure to provide stronger arguments for the view that artworks can yield genuine insight and understanding. In Gregory Currie’s Imagining and Knowing: Learning from Fiction, for example, a convincing case is laid out to the effect that any knowledge gained from engaging with art must “be judged by the very standards that are used in assessing the claim of science to do the same” (Currie 2020: 8) if indeed it is to count as knowledge. Cognitivists must thus rally to provide sturdier grounds for their view. The revived interest in this philosophical discussion targets not only the concept of knowledge at the heart of cognitivist and anti-cognitivist debate, but also highlights a more specific question about how, exactly, some artworks can (arguably) afford cognitive import and change how we think about the world, ourselves and the many events, persons and situations we encounter. This paper seeks to explore some of the ways in which art is capable of altering our epistemic perspectives in ways that might count as knowledge despite circumventing some standards of evidential requirement. In so doing we will contrast two alternative conceptions of how we stand to learn from art. Whereas the former is modelled on the idea that knowledge is something that can be “extracted” from our experience of particular works of art, the latter relies on a notion of such understanding as primarily borne out of a different kind of engagement with art. We shall call this the subtractive conception and cumulative conception respectively. The cumulative conception, we shall argue, better explains why at least some insights and instances of knowledge gained from art seem to elude the evidential standards called for by sceptics of cognitivism.

Science, politics and regulation: The trust-based approach to the demarcation problem

Drawing on literature on values in science and a case-study of UK cancer policy, this paper argues for a novel account of the demarcation project in terms of trustworthiness. The first part of the paper addresses the relationship between science, politics and demarcation. In 2010, the UK government decided to pay more for cancer drugs than for drugs for other diseases; in 2016, this Cancer Drugs Fund was reformed so as to lower the evidential standards for approving cancer drugs, rather than paying more for them. Are these two ways of treating cancer as “special” importantly different? This paper argues that, if we the argument from inductive risk seriously, they seem equivalent. This result provides further reason to doubt the notion of demarcating science from non-science. However, the second part of the paper complicates this story, arguing that considerations of epistemic trust might give us reasons to prefer epistemic communities centred around “broadly acceptable” standards, and which are “sociologically well-ordered”, regardless of inductive risk concerns. After developing these claims through the cancer case-study, the final section suggests how these concerns might motivate novel versions of the demarcation project.

An Epistemic Objection to Racial Profiling

ABSTRACT In this paper, I identify an important epistemic problem with the practice of racial profiling. Racial profiling relies on naked statistical evidence to justify reasonable suspicion. Naked statistical evidence refers to probabilities that are not created by a particular case, but that existed prior to or independently of the case under consideration (Wells, 1992). I argue that naked statistical evidence cannot justify outright belief in someone’s worthiness of suspicion, it can only justify a high credence. This is because statistical evidence fails to be causally connected to the particular case under consideration. According to our blame norms, a precondition for apt blame is that an agent has an outright belief that the agent is responsible for the act for which they are blamed; high credence cannot play this role. I argue that reasonable suspicion in the context of racial profiling frequently involves blame such that it demands the same strict evidential standards. Therefore, we can identify an important epistemic objection to this practice.

When evidence alone is not enough: the problem, policy and politics of water fluoridation in England

Background: Tooth extractions are the most common cause of hospital admissions for children in England. Water fluoridation has the potential to reduce this number by 60%, is backed by the scientific and public health communities, and yet is currently consumed by only 10% of the population. Aims and objectives: This ‘evidence-policy gap’ is explored through Kingdon’s ‘multi-streams approach’ which provides insights into the circumstances under which water fluoridation has made it onto the political agenda, the rationale underpinning opponent and advocate policy positions, and the role of the political arena in fostering or hindering policy action. Methods: Over 100 primary documents were reviewed to develop an understanding of the scientific and ethical arguments for and against water fluoridation, as well as to identify how they have all historically sought to mobilise their policy preferences. Eleven consultations were also conducted with stakeholders as part of the knowledge exchange process. Findings: The key finding of this research is that evidence is only likely to trigger policy change if it emerges into a receptive sociopolitical context. In substantiating this claim we identify evidence not of an ‘evidence-policy gap’ but of a more complex and multidimensional ‘evidence-policy-politics gap’. Discussion and conclusions: The findings contribute to a range of debates in relation to: (1) the apparent irreconcilability of background ideas about what ought to form the basis of public health policymaking; (2) the presence of differing evidential standards that create an uneven playing field; and (3) the central underpinning role of politics in public health policymaking.

Assessing the Quality of Regional Climate Information

AbstractThere are now a plethora of data, models, and approaches available to produce regional and local climate information intended to inform adaptation to a changing climate. There is, however, no framework to assess the quality of these data, models, and approaches that takes into account the issues that arise when this information is produced. An evaluation of the quality of regional climate information is a fundamental requirement for its appropriate application in societal decision-making. Here, an analytical framework is constructed for the quality assessment of science-based statements and estimates about future climate. This framework targets statements that project local and regional climate at decadal and longer time scales. After identifying the main issues with evaluating and presenting regional climate information, it is argued that it is helpful to consider the quality of statements about future climate in terms of 1) the type of evidence and 2) the relationship between the evidence and the statement. This distinction not only provides a more targeted framework for quality, but also shows how certain evidential standards can change as a function of the statement under consideration. The key dimensions to assess regional climate information quality are diversity, completeness, theory, adequacy for purpose, and transparency. This framework is exemplified using two research papers that provide regional climate information and the implications of the framework are explored.

DISPUTABLE ISSUES PROTECTING THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ON MEANS OF INDIVIDUALIZATION

Abstract: ambiguous judicial practice lack of evidential standards cause essential problems protecting intellectual property rights on mean of individualization.It is known that violation of the rights is not enough for judicial remedy. National legislation gives priority to the earlier registration of the business name in the Single State Register of Legal Persons without linking it with the type of activity. Some amendments to the Civil Code of Russian Federation due to restrain unfair business practices are suggested. This paper presents some aspects of evidencing the violation of the intellectual property rights.