British Academy: The UK's National Academy for the Humanities and Social Sciences
< SEE THE SHORT VERSION OF THIS ABSTRACT
Enquiry, Evidence and Facts: An Interdisciplinary Conference
Evidence, Inference and Enquiry: Towards an Integrated Science of Evidence
Professor Philip Dawid
Statistical Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Centre for Mathematical Sciences
Wilberforce Road, Cambridge, CB3 0WB
An abstract presented to the conference
‘Enquiry, Evidence and Facts: An Interdisciplinary conference’
at the British Academy, London, on 13 December 2007
Biography
Philip Dawid is Director of the interdisciplinary Research Programme “Evidence, Inference and Enquiry” at University College London. Having been Pearson Professor of Statistics at UCL from 1989 to 2007, he recently took up the post of Professor of Statistics at Cambridge University, while retaining an Honorary Professorship at UCL. He is a Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society, which has awarded him Guy Medals in Bronze and in Silver; Fellow of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics; Member of the International Statistical Institute; and a Member of the Organising Committee for the Valencia International Meetings on Bayesian Statistics. He has served as Editor of the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Series B) and of Biometrika, and is currently an Editor of Bayesian Analysis. He was President of the International Society for Bayesian Analysis for the year 2000.
Abstract
Although interpretation of evidence is as fundamental to human enquiry as Aristotelian logic, there has been very little general study of evidential reasoning per se. Different disciplines tend to conceive of and use evidence in very different ways, with scant intellectual examination of their procedures. An unusual research programme based at University College London has been bringing together researchers from a wide variety of academic disciplines to explore the similarities and differences in their approaches to evidence, and see to what extent it might be possible to identify common themes and develop common foundations. This has given rise to a broadly based “Evidence Community”, with strong interactions and common interests, and has led to the fruitful transfer of insights and methods across traditional disciplinary boundaries.
The overall programme comprises a number of departmentally-based projects:
- Formal tools for handling evidence (Statistical Science)
- Enquiry and detection (Statistical Science)
- Model-contingent interpretation of evidence (Economics)
- Human attitudes to evidence (Psychology)
- Historical evidence (Hebrew and Jewish Studies),
- Synthesis of complex evidence for practice and policymaking (Primary Care and Population Sciences)
- Evidence in natural sciences (Science and Technology Studies)
and two special interdisciplinary projects:
- Evidence: A case study of interdisciplinarity
- Towards an integrated concept of evidence.
There have been a number of informal interdisciplinary study circles, on a wide range of themes:
- Causality
- Prediction
- Dreams
- Narrative
- Philosophy of evidence
as well as other integrating activities including seminars, master classes and conferences
Some specific outcomes of the programme include:
- Analytical approaches to evidence and argumentation in law, intelligence analysis, criminal investigation
- Formal frameworks for causal reasoning, prediction and action
- Statistical approaches to education research, medical decision-making
- Evidence and narrative in law, health, philosophy, education
- Pragmatism and the logic of discovery
Throughout the programme there has been substantial informal interaction between all participants, and with other interested parties both within and without UCL. This has been facilitated by a dedicated website and email list, which have also supported lively discussions on a range of currently topical evidential issues, such as the justifiability of a shoot-to-kill policy in cases such as that of the innocent Brazilian “terrorist” Jean Charles de Menezes.
Notwithstanding an abundance of good will and shared interests, it has been revealing to observe regular misunderstandings and occasional frictions resulting from rubbing together individuals with very different disciplinary background, standpoints and assumptions. Even our subtitle, “Towards an Integrated Science of Evidence”, has been a source of some contention, with many from the humanities in particular feeling nervous over the use of the term “Science”; some participants have even expressed scepticism towards the very possibility, or indeed desirability, of an integrated approach to evidence, even as a distant goal to aim towards.
We have nevertheless identified and developed some approaches intended to shed light on more than one area of evidential reasoning. One such theme has been the use of graphical models to represent, manage and manipulate inter-relationships between many items in complex webs of evidence and hypotheses. Another, related, set of topics incorporates probabilistic and causal reasoning and philosophical pragmatism.
Have we succeeded? Let that be judged by the success of this conference. Certainly the imaginative vision and support of the Leverhulme Trust have catalysed the formation of a multi-disciplinary group committed to exploring “Evidence” as an important topic in its own right. But this is necessarily a long-term research, and we shall have to see whether the momentum created is sufficient to carry the flame onward.