On 4 January 2016 at 19:26, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I suggest 'evidence' comprises the combination of the data and the
> discourse of reasoning explaining why that data implies the truth or
> otherwise of statements, propositions, and predictions.
>
> When someone makes the argument critiquing the use of data in the proof of
> a statement, they are challenging the explanatory reasoning, not the data.
>
I agree with Terry, and I think it's a reasonable distinction to make.
For instance, at
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/staff/clarke/data-evidence_distinction, we read
"Information about individuals is data. But once aggregated via appropriate
statistical work, and reported as the result of a trial, it is evidence."
Here we see that in going from data to evidence, reasoning happens in the
form of the statistical analyses and the conclusions drawn therefrom. This
is a specific example, but I think it generalizes to Terry's position
nicely.
Here's another way of looking at it: the same data can be evidence *for*
one claim and *against* another claim. In such cases, what changes is the
reasoning about the data in a context defined by or in association with the
claims. For instance, data gathered by NOAA bouys (
http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/) can be used generate evidence to (a) track
tsunamis, and (b) demonstrate overall sea-level rise. The difference is how
the data is analyzed and reasoned with.
\V/_ /fas
*Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.*
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|