text:
User talk:JREverest/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/2020-21/Seminar group 6/Evidence

To the writer of the paragraph on Confirmation Bias: I saw that you covered how confirmation bias can lead to a distortion/manipulation of evidence, may I add a paragraph that discusses how this bias can impact the design of the experiment before any tests are even run causing systematic errors? Blacklipstick (discuss • contribs) 22:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes! That is a great point and would look at confirmation bias from another perspective of bias before the experiment is even conducted which is extremely interesting in the context of evidence! Of course you can contribute! I will look at your referencing to read the articles and sources you use myself in order to full grasp the concept! Thank you for your input!

Forensic Evidence In Criminology:

Hey Forensic evidence in criminology writer, I read about your article and did some research about it. I was wondering if I could add some limits to forensic evidence in criminology. I think it is very interesting to look at its limits since a lot of people take scientific pieces of evidence as granted. For example, Mitt Romney intended to reintegrate the death penalty in Massachusetts, since he thought that forensic evidence is 100 per cent reliable, which I believe is not the point of Forensic evidence improvement. Furthermore, I could be very interesting to look at the conflict between the two disciplines (law and science) since they both have different constraints and vision of what evidence is.

Sounds really interesting. Go ahead and add! I think maybe the part about the conflict between law and science could be a seperate paragraph as well; my part on forensics is the more science-y part of the law, so maybe it would be best to see what the Evidence in Law person thinks. Also wouldn't it be more of a collaboration than a conflict, between science and law? I would like to see your opinion on this, and if they do differ, how so?

Here is my paragraph, tell me what you think:

Law and science are indeed two very different disciplines, with different approaches and constraints when talking about evidence. When forensic evidence is put forward, it's considered as the truth since it is scientific, however, a piece of scientific evidence does not necessarily mean the truth. Since it is possible that a DNA test is wrong. In 2005, Mitt Romney took approached forensic evidence without taking into account the different constraints in the disciplines. Indeed, he only looked at it in the legal system, as they are the truth without any doubt. Thus, he decided to reintroduce a bill on relegalize death penalty in Massachusetts, considering that scientific evidence will prevent every wrong convcitions and did not consider any margin of error

Looks good. I like the way you wrote it better on the actual user page which is good. Thanks for your contribution!

Law and Crime
@Uclqjh0 and @hudsonvalley12, looks like we all got similar topics! should we make a general entry for crime/law related paragraphs and have subunits within it? some of our ideas overlap, we could rewrite a more compact version of all 3 of our articles. here is my proposition: Hey! This is a good idea! However, I am thinking about moving my essay to the truth sandbox as I think that approaching this topic by talking about the truth would be more relevant. I have to think about how I can turn it so nothing sure yet. I will let you know asap. But thank you for bringing that up, if I don't move it, this would be an excellent idea!! Hey! Good idea, I was just telling myself that when I saw yours. Should we have a main Law category then?

Hey, I went ahead and created the main category! Let me know what you think.

Evidence In Law

Law is a discipline based on evidence and truth. However, often, when it comes to truth, everyone has a different perspective and we quickly come to the conclusion that truth is not a monopole: similarly, to Schrödinger’s cat in physics, truth in law can take different forms and there can be multiple truths. This is why evidence is so important in law to support an argument. In front of a court, evidence can take the form of a testimony, an exhibit, a documentary material or a demonstrative evidence. [28]

What can be used as evidence in a court:

'''Testimony: ''' According to USLegal, “A testimony is a statement made in a legal proceeding or legislative hearing by a witness while under oath”. [29]. Here, a testimony is considered as an acceptable evidence in law in a certain situation that is defined and has prerequisites: it is made by a witness and while under oath. However, “testimony in the form of opinions or conclusions cannot be received, except from experts” [30], showing that law requires certain criteria to qualify a fact as “evidence” in the court room.

Eyewitnesses in court: how memory can be altered and create inaccurate evidences?

One of the key kind of evidence in law is eyewitnessed evidence. However, it has been argued for over a century that this type of evidence is not always reliable in court.[53] Indeed, it is known that when a memory is revisited, emotions among other factors play a big part in its reconstruction, especially in its alteration. This can lead to inaccurate accusations during a trial. So should an uncertain process such as revisiting memory, influenced by many different factors, be able to choose someone's fate for the rest of its life?

In fact, due to wrong testimonies in the United States, about 375 prisoners spent on average 14 years in prison for an accusation that was proven wrong by a DNA test. [54] However, in the judiciary system, eyewitnesses are considered very reliable. Most neuroscientists agreed “that memory is encoded in the patterns of synaptic connectivity between neurons”. This synaptic connection can be altered and thus shape future testimonies. Furthermore, there is the LTD (Long-term depression), a phenomenon that reduces neural synapses efficiency. Such a phenomenon can damage memory. [55]. This occurs during a simulation of the synapsis whenever someone is working with their memory, and lead to an improvement of the connection, thus the memory, but also to a deterioration of the connection. [56] Moreover, in others scenario, when stress occurs, which is very common when individuals witness a crime, it can release hormones, such as epinephrine or cortisol during the arousal. And it has been shown that during a high arousal stage, “memory encoding may be enhanced or impaired depending on the person's individual stress response.” [57].

Additionally, there is among many others bias such as the cross-race bias, when it comes to identifying someone from a different race, humans tend to struggle more and make the testimony less reliable and for instance, it is easier for us to recognize a face from our race. [58] Another alteration of the memory is when someone is exposed to confusing information. This could alternate someone’s original memory, but at different degree depending on the person (being exposed to a picture of someone’s that was not the guilty one, police asking rhetoric questions…) [59] Even though it is not possible at the moment to get into someone memory, it is essential to acknowledge that human’s memory is not fully reliable and therefore it is key that judges balance the weight they put into eyewitnessed evidence when making their final decision.  Exhibit:

An exhibit is “a document or object (including a photograph) introduced as evidence during a trial (copy of a paper attached to a pleading, any legal paper filed in a lawsuit, declaration, affidavit, or other document, which is referred to and incorporated into the main document”. [31]. Again, there are strict criteria as to what counts as evidence and what does not. For example: secondary evidence as to the content or intent of writings cannot be received. [32]

Documentary material or Demonstrative evidence:

“The term documentary materials is defined by 44 USCS § 2201 as all books, correspondence, memorandums, documents, papers, pamphlets, works of art, models, pictures, photographs, plats, maps, films, and motion pictures, including, but not limited to, audio, audiovisual, or other electronic or mechanical recordation’s”. [33]

Forensic Evidence In Criminology:

Evidence can be quite delicate to define: what makes something good enough to prove a point? What is proof based on: facts, knowledge, observation, or a bit of everything? Either way, evidence has become crucial in supporting claims, advancing research, and problem solving. In the case of criminology, evidence can be under several forms: forensic evidence, expert evidence, circumstantial evidence, direct evidence, and primary and secondary evidence. Criminology is a discipline that englobes the scientific study of crime and criminal behavior: therefore, evidence is a pillar of this discipline. Specifically focusing on forensic evidence, obtained through scientific methods such as toxicology, ballistics, blood tests, fingerprints, anthropometry, maturation, and DNA tests, we can understand part of the role of evidence in this discipline.

Forensic evidence is critical: it helps determine the innocence or guiltiness of a person in a court case. Some evidence can be undisputable, and can allow the certainty of specific facts. Other pieces of evidence can be insufficient, and arguments can not be based solely on the information brought by the evidence. In the court of law, the analysis of forensic evidence is used to establish facts on the situation. However, there also exists evidence tampering or faulty results, so it is also up to the involved professionals to examine and determine if the evidence can be used as real proof or fact.

In the past 40 years, forensic evidence has greatly advanced with the development of technology and new techniques. Today, many new tools are still being developed, such as drones which allow 3D representations of crime scenes or accidents, leading up to a future with more and more accurate evidence.

Hence, by creating strict rules, it ensures that the term “evidence” in law is specific which promotes its importance and utility in front of a court. This is important as for example: hearsay evidence cannot be received as evidence under this title in front of a court. [34]. Hence, we see that depending on the discipline, evidence has a certain level of exclusivity and sets of rules that apply to reach the appellation of evidence.

Bascrzm (discuss • contribs)

To the author of "The Issue of Personal Diary Entries as Evidence in History",

My opinion is that underlining and putting text in bold is not adequate when trying to write formally and objectively even if the purpose is to emphasise a segment. I've also never seen this on Wikipedia articles. Perhaps I am wrong, what do you think? Icloneseashells (discuss • contribs) 15:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. Yes, thank you, a reasonable observation. I have seen on some articles that words have been put in bold, but, yes, you are true about underlining. Thank you! Hellllothere (discuss • contribs) 23:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

To the author of Evidence of History,

I have read your article and I enjoyed it a lot. Whilst reading it, I came up with a new idea about which I could write within your section. Could I add a small paragraph about examples, when, in the discipline of history, there has been a misunderstanding and thereby misinterpretation of evidence (and write about the outcomes of that)? Hellllothere (discuss • contribs) 23:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. I think it would be a great addition! Thank you! Icloneseashells (discuss • contribs) 10:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

To the author of "Evidence of History" (again):

Hi, since our contributions in this sandbox are about similar topics, but your is about a evidence of history as whole (rather than mine - issue with one particular type of evidence), I switched your contribution to the top and put mine right after yours, since, in my opinion, it would make a more comfortable transition for the reader! Would that be okay for you? :) Hellllothere (discuss • contribs) 10:24, 09 November 2020 (UTC)

Evidence based practice in interdisciplinary healthcare suggestions
Dear writer of Evidence based practice in interdisciplinary healthcare, As the writer of Evidence in medicine using the example of homeopathy I have realised that we have very similar themes. I was therefore wondering If we could somehow merge them together? Maybe I could move my contribution to yours as a complement to conflicts in the used of EBM. Let me know what you think... 128.86.177.101 (discuss) 20:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the suggestion! Yes, I think that it would be a great idea to include homeopathy as an example of conflict in interdisciplinary healthcare. Would you like to make the edits, or should I? Onchesilbeach (discuss • contribs) 16:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello! I have added my section!Romarinlavende (discuss • contribs) 10:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Hi, thank you for adding your section! I think it is a really good example of conflicts in evidence. I have made a few edits to avoid any repetition e.g. definition of EBM, and to tie it in with the rest of the section. I just noticed that a few of the citations are links to wikipedia pages, would it be possible to find other sources for this information? Onchesilbeach (discuss • contribs) 11:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Evidence in Medicine - possible addition to help illustrate argument
To the writer of Evidence in Medicine,

I have just read your contribution and found it very interesting to think about the evidence for homeopathy. I like the ending with the argument for qualitative evidence to be used in evidence-based medicine, but was thinking maybe you could add some of the reasons people have against using qualitative evidence? e.g. some of the issues/discrepancies in collecting this data. As you have put forward a very convincing argument for use of qualitative evidence, this might help to illustrate why is it not already the most commonplace form of evidence.

Hope this makes sense :)

 * Hi! Thank you for your comments on my contributions (they make perfect sense). I am working on incorporating your example it with the difficulties of data collections in homeopathy and other CAM. 128.86.177.101 (discuss) 20:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

To the author of The Limitations of Using Extrapolated Data as Evidence,

Great idea in using the example of extrapolation! Maybe you could add to the implications of using extrapolation as evidence in biology (the discipline you describe with your example) if (as you stated) evidence formed from extrapolation is not 100% reliable, what does this mean for the discipline? How does it impact final results? could it have ethical consequences as an erroneous prescription could affect a human life? I thought this would be a good addition as it gives a bit of a deeper insight. I also found it very interesting to look at extrapolation in the social sciences such as economics and how trends and extrapolation are used to make economic assumptions. Although his might not fit in your sandbox due to it not being within the discipline of biology, I thought it would be a good extra example and something interesting to think about (even if it is not included)!
 * I think that it's really interesting to consider the implications surrounding the discipline as a whole, although extrapolation is usually used in specific experiments where it is unavoidable i.e. not possible to gather data empirically. I think extrapolation in the social sciences would be a great topic to discuss, it could even end up as its own paragraph! Blacklipstick (discuss • contribs) 13:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

From 11er467va to the author of The Limitations of Using Extrapolated Data as Evidence

As is written above, extrapolation is such a fitting idea for this week's concept! I just noticed you wrote 'scientific proof' rather than 'scientific evidence', which you may want to change as 'proving' anything in science is generally seen as not possible and so 'proof' not appropriate terminology.
 * Thanks so much for pointing out that technicality, I'll fix that Blacklipstick (discuss • contribs) 22:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

To the writer of Eye Witnesses in court:

I think including research or theories that show the argued unreliableness of Eye Witness testimony might help support your arguments or even develop them. I was researching and came across the idea of reconstructive memory in Bartletts theory where he researched memory and how stories are recalled (Loftus E.F., Palmer J.C. (1996) Eyewitness Testimony. In: Introducing Psychological Research. Palgrave, London.(Loftus E, Palmer J. Eyewitness Testimony. Introducing Psychological Research. 1996;:305-309.), many link this to the idea of eye witness testimony and I therefore thought it might be useful for your research. (he also did experiments to prove test this as he was a psychologists, it might also be interesting to look into that in order to observe the moulding effects of memory when recalling it. I thought it might help support your argument or be interesting in relation to your research. I hope this is useful!

Thank you for that! I will have a look!! Also if you want to add something feel free! Hey, thank you for that! I will look it up

I added a small section, I didn’t fully explain the research as your text is already lengthy and therefore I felt like adding a full explanation of research would be too much. I explained the main finding of the research by stating how leading questions can alter memory and therefore influence eye witness testimony, i hope this makes sense and is understandable! If not please tell me and i can change it to however you feel will fit your text best.

To the writer of Evidence in medicine: example of homeopathy: I feel your sentence that includes " . . a placebo effect or an actual effective method . . " suggests that placebo treatments don't have an impact on a patient, but they actually can. Blacklipstick (discuss • contribs) 22:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Another thought: Since there is scientific evidence that placebos can actually trigger genuine physical/psychological changes in the body, would that (to a certain extent) validate the use of CAM? Blacklipstick (discuss • contribs) 22:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi ! I had not seen your contribution earlier as it wasn't very clearly stated... (1) I have edited out this sentence anyway but what I meant was people would either accuse homeopathy to have a mere placebo effect (in which case it would be nothing new brought to medicine) OR it could be more than this and be official recognised as a concrete medical branch. (2)Placebo affects are different from an actual medical branch whereas CAM are a type of medicine.(from my point of view anyway) Romarinlavende (discuss • contribs) 11:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 * From 11er467va to the author of 'The Issue of Personal Diary Entries as Evidence in History'

I really like that you've used diary entries to illustrate the issue with evidence in history - I have always felt they could be problematic if considered entirely factual!The only thing I did notice were some issues relating to grammar, semantics and register which could perhaps be revised to made the contribution even better. You could change 'past' to 'historically' in the first paragraph to sound more professional, change 'personal diary entries' to 'journaling is considered common practice', add 'the' before 'context', change the 'and' at the beginning of the parentheses to 'with the main aim...', remove the 'the' before 'academia', making the content of the second set of parentheses within that sentence a bit more clear (could split into two sentences perhaps?), removing the comma before 'historians' at the end of the paragraph, and add an 'of' in 'history of academia'. I really hope I haven't offended with these revisions - they are just suggestions! The final part where you use a quote from Paperno is striking and the concluding sentence really concise and astute!
 * Hi, thank you very much for these suggestions!! They are very valuable and I will certainly look into enhancing my text and making it more academically appealing! Thank you once again! :) Hellllothere (discuss • contribs) 10:03, 09 November 2020 (UTC)

To the author of Experiments as Scientific and Social Evidence
Hey! I really enjoy your topic. I have added a little bit of structure to your paragraph, by adding subtitles to separate the part about scientific experiments from the one about social experiments! I have also changed the structure of a few sentences and grammar in the part about a social experiment, and expanded on the history of it - I have described one of the earliest known social experiments. What is more, I have added a few sentences about what methods are used to assure the validity of social experiments! I think it is worth elaborating on! Of course, It is just a suggestion.

I also think it could be worth to add some references next to the paragraph about the Industrial Revolution, Renaissance, and Muslim philosophers!

--Dearenemy (discuss • contribs) 17:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


text:
User talk:LGreg/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge (LG seminar 2020/21)/Seminar 18/Evidence/Evidence in Psychology

Really small formatting point might be to separate references into their own paragraph? Uclqdeb (discuss • contribs) 15:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Talk:History of wireless telegraphy and broadcasting in Australia/Topical/Biographies/William Philip Bechervaise

Research to date:

William Philip Bechervaise (b. 1831) appears to be the first of that surname (Jersey origin) to travel to Australia circa 1853, all hits to 1886 either William Philip Bechervaise himself or his children. From 1887, his nephew Edward John Bechervaise (b. 1855, son of brother Edward Price Bechervaise) emigrates to Australia and settles in Geelong (quickly prominent).

 * Trove - Bechervaise - All Australia - All dates - 7,579 hits as at 26 Oct 2020

 * Common OCR errors corrected: Bccbcrvaise (1), Bcchcrvaisc (27), Bcchcrvaise (55), Bcchervaisc (43), Bechervaisc (initially 150+), Bechervaiso (initially 200+), Beehervaisc (13), Beohervaise (initially 200+), Bochervaise, Bochervaisc, Boohervaise, Boohervaisc

 * All Bechervaise hits reviewed and tagged William Philip Bechervaise (1,896), to end 1892 03, over 1,800 hits;
 * after 1892 03 Bechervaise hits relating to Edward Price Bechervaise are not tagged, only those relating to William Philip Bechervaise and his children, complete to end 1894

 * All hits reviewed and tagged either !Wikibooks Bechervaise (633) or !Wikibooks Bechervaise Not (892), to end 1879 07

 * All telegraph hits in the Ballarat Star reviewed 1 Jan 1881 to 30 Jun 1881, WPB tagged

 * William Philip Bechervaise (b. 28 Oct 1831??, Alverstoke, Hampshire, England; d. 20 Nov 1907, South Yarra, Victoria); m. 1858, Victoria
 * Lucy Ann Burton (b. 7 Jul 1842, Hobart, Tasmania; d. ???, ???
 * Herbert Price Bechervaise (b. 14 Apr 1859, Ballarat, Vic; d. 8 Jan 1927, Hawthorn, Melbourne, Vic); m.
 * Harriet Agnes Lewis née Tonge (b. 7 May 1852, Worcestershire, Eng; d. 17 Sep 1940, Durban, South Africa)
 * Herbert Walter Bechervaise (b. 1880, Emerald Hill, Vic; d. 9 Jun 1963, Geelong)
 * Constance Lucy Bechervaise (b. 1881, Elmhurst, Vic; d. ???)
 * Charlotte Harriet Bechervaise (b. 1882, Elmhurst, Vic; d. 1959, St. Kilda, Melbourne, Vic)
 * William Bechervaise (b. 1884, Elmhurst, Vic; d. 1884, Elmhurst, Vic)
 * Linda Violet Bechervaise (b. 1886, Elmhurst, Vic, twin to Ethel May; d. 1886, Elmhurst, Vic)
 * Ethel May Bechervaise (b. 1886, Elmhurst, Vic, twin to Linda Violet; d. ???)
 * William Philip Bechervaise (b. 1887, Elmhurst, Vic; d. ???)
 * Walter Reed Bechervaise (b. 8 Sep 1861, Ballarat, Vic; d. 15 Oct 1927, Richmond, Melbourne, Vic)
 * Charlotte Alice Bechervaise (b. 11 Jun 1863, Ballarat, Vic; d. 8 Apr 1927, Bayswater, Melbourne, Vic)
 * Philip Burton Bechervaise (b. 13 Feb 1865, Ballarat, Vic; 31 Jan 1917, Glenferrie, Melbourne, Vic)

Herbert Price Bechervaise (b. 14 Apr 1859, Ballarat, Vic; d. 8 Jan 1927, Hawthorn, Melbourne, Vic)
 * 1877 many cricket reports
 * Aug 1877 (age 18) concludes 4 years as pupil teacher Mount Pleasant School, appointed Beaufort State School
 * Mar 1878 (age 19) now living at Beaufort, participates in athletics event
 * Oct 1878 (age 19) travels to Adelaide
 * Nov 1889 (age 30) appointed deputy-registrar of births and deaths at Elmhurst
 * Jan 1891 (age 32) steward at Elmhurst annual races

Walter Reed Bechervaise (b. 8 Sep 1861, Ballarat, Vic; d. 15 Oct 1927, Richmond, Melbourne, Vic)
 * Feb 1878 (age 16) apprentice at Phoenix Foundry, preparing model for Juvenile Industrial Exhibition
 * Sep 1888 (age 26) manager Flora Bell silver mine, NT, suffers mental breakdown

Charlotte Alice Bechervaise (b. 11 Jun 1863, Ballarat, Vic; d. 8 Apr 1927, Bayswater, Melbourne, Vic)
 * Apr 1877 (age 13) achieves Second Honors in Upper School of Queen's College Ballarat
 * Dec 1877 (age 14) wins honours and prizes at Queen's College

Philip Burton Bechervaise (b. 13 Feb 1865, Ballarat, Vic; 31 Jan 1917, Glenferrie, Melbourne, Vic) - Samuel.dellit (discuss • contribs) 19:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Dec 1877 (age 12) Philip Burton Bechervaise wins honours in Arithmetic at Christ Church Grammar School
 * Jul 1903 (age 38) relieving manager Victorian Railways, Hamilton, then Princes' Bridge Melbourne
 * Feb 1908 (age 43) co-respondent in Melbourne divorce matter


text:
Mundeze

Table of Contents

 * 1) /Grammar/
 * 2) Phonology
 * 3) Alphabet
 * 4) Pronunciation
 * 5) Intonation
 * 6) Phonotactics
 * 7) Syntax
 * 8) Word order
 * 9) Grammatical cases
 * 10) Elliptical construction
 * 11) Parts of speech
 * 12) Nouns
 * 13) Articles
 * 14) Adjectives
 * 15) Adverbs
 * 16) tabula-leksey
 * 17) Pronouns
 * 18) Verbs
 * 19) Function words
 * 20) Sentence forms
 * 21) Interrogative
 * 22) Negative and affirmative
 * 23) Exclamative
 * 24) Exclamatory rhetorical question
 * 25) Morphology
 * 26) Morphological typology
 * 27) Compound
 * 28) Affixes
 * 29) Typography
 * 30) Letter case
 * 31) Punctuation
 * 32) Other typographical signs
 * 33) Lexicon
 * 34) Origin of words
 * 35) Onomatopoeias
 * 36) Compound
 * 37) A priori
 * 38) A posteriori
 * 39) Transcription of nouns
 * 40) Borrowed words
 * 41) Names
 * 42) Countries and demonyms
 * 43) Cities
 * 44) Languages
 * 45) /Vocabulary/
 * 46) Numerals
 * 47) Colors
 * 48) The family
 * 49) Get acquainted
 * 50) Locate
 * 51) Polite phrases

title: Mundeze


text:
User talk:JREverest/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/2020-21/Seminar group 5/Evidence

@Evidence in Postcolonial studies
Having personally studied the Algerian war as part of my curriculum in my French high school, your contribution feels very familiar to me. Following this war, France preferred not to use the term “war” to qualify this event but rather “maintenance of order” and “pacification” in order to officially forget the “events” that took place in Algeria. The French historian Benjamin Stora even used the word "buried" war to qualify this war, as this national behaviour felt like an official amnesia at the time. It is not before the 1980s that memory groups sought to make their voices heard, including the returnees from Algeria and the harkis, Algerians auxiliaries who fought alongside French men during the Algerian war.

I also believe, that we, humans, have a selective memory that distorts facts and events. The memory bearer hence has a vision by definition subjective of the past and faces the impossibility to deliver a neutral testimony. Bearing this in mind whilst looking at quantitative and qualitative evidence may help us avoid behind trapped in any single-sided or biased mindset. Mathildem16 (discuss • contribs) 22:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Wow, thank you for that insight! I completely agree with what you said about us having selective memory. I'll definitely try to add that as well as the emergence of Algerian war memory groups in the 1980s into my section :) If you would personally like to add anything else to the topic or have any other references that could be used for it, please feel free to do so! Djungelskog1 (discuss • contribs) 21:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Thank you...I am very much pleased that my contribution was helpful. I found a documentary which recalls the Algerian War and even includes archive footage from it, co-produced by Gabriel Le Bomin et Benjamin Stora in 2012. It is a bit long, but if you have some time during this lockdown, here is a link to watch it. The "only small problem" is that it is in French, but I am sure subtitles could be added. Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GYwdxuD-v4 Mathildem16 (discuss • contribs) 11:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gathering Anthropological Evidence Through Ethnography
I'm also interested in this topic, and I was actually going to do it for mine. I mentioned ethnography in my section about documentary film making as much of documentaries use ethnographic methods. I find it really interesting how much they relate to each other. Maybe you could mention how ethnographies are presented in this way in present day? I think it makes research so much more accessible. Basc.blue (discuss • contribs) 01:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The acknowledgement of the biased accounts of explorers and travellers observing foreign societies in anthropological research is important, as it allows one to recognise the possible inaccuracies or misunderstandings in evidence gathered. The development of a different form of anthropological evidence, that being, ethnography, in which the members of this foreign culture give their account from their own perspective allows less room for misunderstanding. However, it is essential that anthropologists gathering ethnographic evidence still remain analytical in their approach. I found your section particularly engaging, as I did not know much about ethnography prior to reading this. Ivoryallen (discuss • contribs) 11:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@AurelieJane
Hi ! I really liked your text on Sociology, but I was wondering where did you find the information you used to write your essay. Could you add the references you used? Undercoverfrench (discuss • contribs) 16:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Evidence in Physics
I completely agree with what you're saying about the evolutionary nature of Natural Sciences, as over the course of history it has been proven again and again that theories regarded as "absolute truths" were replaced with newfound knowledge. By using the Reductio ad absurdum principle for example you may be able to disprove theories regarded as truths before but some new experiment enables you to show the opposite. One example I found very interesting is about the impact of quantum physics on classical physics. The fact that quantum mechanics were ablo to explain one of Newton's axioms for mechanical physics, the laws of motion, shows how through new evidence gained by experimentation, new knowledge can evolve. You can read more about this here, if interested: http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/QMtoNewtonsLaws.pdf. poccy3 (discuss • contribs) 18:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

 * @poccy3 Thank you so much for sharing this article with me, I had not recognised the impact of quantum physics on classical physics prior to this. This is one of many examples which demonstrates the need for collaboration when one attempts to expand on prior scientific knowledge, as reflecting on evidence already gathered allows one to build on the knowledge which they already have. This could either be through the criticism and rejection of other theories and the evidence which supports them, or, through the conducting more experiments in support of said theories, either way, new knowledge will evolve. --Ivoryallen (discuss • contribs) 13:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 * @Ivoryallen Glad you liked it! I agree with the criticism one should have when looking at established theories, because if we just take them as they exist, no one would challenge prior knowledge, which could limit us in our collective expansion of knowledge. In general, I think the quote from Socrates "I know that I know nothing" describes well the caution we should adopt concerning our knowledge. (I am of course not saying we should reject every theory but look at how they were established and not take them as given.)poccy3 (discuss • contribs) 16:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@evidence in mathematics
@Bonschlonzo Very interesting section about the topic. I may suggest to illustrate where the Pytharogas theorems is applicable today through a practical point of view. For example, we can observe that in architecture it is used to calculate the height of buildings and the length of walls. This was explicitly noticeable during the egyptian time with pyramids. Except this minor edit, your text remains very enriching.

 * @UClqevy Thanks a lot for your additional knowledge and striving interest. I have just made the edit, have a look if you want to, if it is what you would have thought of!

@Evidence in Architecture
@UCLqevy I really like the background knowledge and effort you put into your text, as it not only gives insides about pure architecture, however, links to the field of different scientific disciplines, especially the detail in EBD. I found another research article from Perkins & Will about the interior and exterior design of an education building, maybe you could include this as another example of EBD to urge for a better understanding. This is the link for he article, have a look, maybe there is something which could be added to your research. https://spaces4learning.com/articles/2013/07/01/evidence-based-design.aspxBonSchlonzo (discuss • contribs) 11:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 * @BonSchlonzo Thank you for your comment! Indeed, this is very interesting to see that EBD is also used in the teaching area... I will make a small edit.

@Evidence in Documentary Filmmaking
@Basc.blue I find it fascinating how the research methods of pseudosciences such as cryptozoology (my section) are largely the same as that of documentaries (being reliant on observation, interviews and such), yet when presented in a documentary they are always dismissed as being false claims. I believe it is plausible to say that the lack of evidence does not equate to the lack of existence, but the fact that this interpretation is never presented is proof of your suggestion that documentaries push a certain view on a subject. Aside from the link to my chosen discipline, I very much enjoyed your contribution, as I was previously among those who took documentaries to be factual truths. WoodzyMoodzy (discuss • contribs) 11:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Evidence in Cryptozoology
Hello,

As I never heard from Cryptozoology before in my life, I was really curious to learn about it. I would be very interested to know how you came along with the idea to write about evidence in Cryptozoology :). It is really interesting to see that because this subdiscipline can only rely on empirical evidence, it is hard for it to exist has a real subdiscipline. Maybe this subdiscipline is more related to Literature than to Zoology. It seems to be a real debate.

Some animals such as the Baku seems to came right from fiction. Its abilities seem surreal. I agree with you about the fact that researchers should really distinguished the rare from the mythological. For me, learning from mythology or stories is important. I believe that every story start with a part of reality. Studying myths may bring to the discovery of rare animals.

Jadaireu (discuss • contribs) 16:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


text:
User:In kunci/sandbox

[[Media:in_kunci]]
 * 1) in_kunci

title: User:In kunci/sandbox


text:
User talk:In kunci/sandbox

[[Media:in_kunci]]In kunci (discuss • contribs) 01:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC).

title: User talk:In kunci/sandbox


text:
User:In kunci

proferti:in_kunci
proferti:[[media:]]In kunci (discuss • contribs) 03:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)•

title: User:In kunci


text:
User talk:In kunci

([[Media:in_kunci]])In kunci (discuss • contribs) 01:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC).

title: User talk:In kunci


text:
User:Ans/Sum of Sequence of Squares

Theorem

 * $$\displaystyle \forall n \in \N: \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n i^2 = \frac {n (n + 1) (2 n + 1) } 6$$

Proof by Summation of Summations

 * [[File:Sum of Sequences of Squares.jpg]]

We can observe from the above diagram that:
 * $$\displaystyle \forall n \in \N: \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n i^2 = \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n \left({\sum_{j \mathop = i}^n j}\right)$$

Therefore we have:

$$ \begin{array}{rrl} & \displaystyle \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n i^2 & \displaystyle = \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n \left({\sum_{j \mathop = i}^n j}\right) \\ & & \displaystyle = \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n \left( {\sum_{j \mathop = 1}^n j - \sum_{j \mathop = 1}^{i - 1} j} \right) \\ & & \displaystyle = \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n \left({\frac {n \left({n + 1}\right)} 2 - \frac {i \left({i - 1}\right)} 2}\right) \\ \implies & \displaystyle 2 \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n i^2 & \displaystyle = n^2 \left({n + 1}\right) - \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n i^2 + \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n i \\ \implies & \displaystyle 3 \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n i^2 & \displaystyle = n^2 \left({n + 1}\right) + \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n i \\ \implies & \displaystyle 3 \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n i^2 & \displaystyle = n^2 \left({n + 1}\right) + \frac {n \left({n + 1}\right)} 2 & \text{Closed Form for Triangular Numbers} \\ \implies & \displaystyle 6 \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n i^2 & \displaystyle = 2 n^2 \left({n + 1}\right) + n \left({n + 1}\right) \\ & & \displaystyle = n \left({n + 1}\right) \left({2 n + 1}\right) \\ \implies & \displaystyle \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n i^2 & \displaystyle = \frac {n \left({n + 1}\right) \left({2 n + 1}\right)} 6 \\ \end{array} $$

Proof by Sum of Differences of Cubes
$$ \begin{align} \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n \left({\left({i + 1}\right)^3 - i^3}\right) & = \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n \left({i^3 + 3 i^2 + 3 i + 1 - i^3}\right) & \text{Binomial Theorem} \\ & = \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n \left({3 i^2 + 3 i + 1}\right) \\ & = 3 \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n i^2 + 3 \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n i + \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n 1 & \text{Summation is Linear} \\ & = 3\sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n i^2 + 3 \frac {n \left({n + 1}\right)} 2 + n & \text{Closed Form for Triangular Numbers} \\ \end{align} $$

On the other hand:

$$ \begin{align} \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n \left({\left({i + 1}\right)^3 - i^3}\right) & = \left({n + 1}\right)^3 - n^3 + n^3 - \left({n - 1}\right)^3 + \left({n - 1}\right)^3 - \cdots + 2^3 - 1^3 & \text{Definition of Definition:Summation!Summation} \\ & = \left({n + 1}\right)^3 - 1^3 & \text{Telescoping Series/Example 2!Telescoping Series: Example 2} \\ & = n^3 + 3n^2 + 3n + 1 - 1 & \text{Binomial Theorem} \\ & = n^3 + 3n^2 + 3n \\ \end{align} $$

Therefore:

$$ \begin{array}{rrl} & \displaystyle 3 \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n i^2 + 3 \frac {n \left({n + 1}\right)} 2 + n & \displaystyle = n^3 + 3 n^2 + 3 n \\ \implies & \displaystyle 3 \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n i^2 & \displaystyle = n^3 + 3 n^2 + 3 n - 3 \frac {n \left({n + 1}\right)} 2 - n \\ \end{array} $$

Therefore:

$$ \begin{align} \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n i^2 & = \frac 1 3 \left({n^3 + 3 n^2 + 3 n - 3 \frac {n \left({n + 1}\right)}2 - n}\right) \\ & = \frac 1 3 \left({n^3 + 3 n^2 + 3 n - \frac {3 n^2} 2 - \frac {3 n} 2 - n}\right) \\ & = \frac 1 3 \left({n^3 + \frac {3 n^2} 2 + \frac n 2}\right) \\ & = \frac 1 6 n \left({2 n^2 + 3 n + 1}\right) \\ & = \frac 1 6 n \left({n + 1}\right) \left({2 n + 1}\right) \\ \end{align} $$

title: User:Ans/Sum of Sequence of Squares


text:
User:Ans/Sum of Sequence of Nth Powers

Theorem

 * $$\forall k \in \N_0 \forall n \in \N_0: \operatorname{sum\_of\_powers}(k, n) = \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n i^k = \frac 1 {k+1} \left({\left({n + 1}\right)^{k+1} - 1 - \sum_{j \mathop = 0}^{k-1}\binom{k+1}{j}\operatorname{sum\_of\_powers}(j, n)}\right)$$

Proof by Sum of Differences of One Higher Order Powers
$$ \begin{align} \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n \left({\left({i + 1}\right)^{k+1} - i^{k+1}}\right) & = \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n \left({\sum_{j \mathop = 0}^{k+1}\binom{k+1}{j}i^j - i^{k+1}}\right) & \text{Binomial Theorem} \\ & = \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n \left({\binom{k+1}{k+1}i^{k+1} + \binom{k+1}{k}i^k + \sum_{j \mathop = 0}^{k-1}\binom{k+1}{j}i^j - i^{k+1}}\right) & \text{recursive definition} \\ & = \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n \left({(k+1)i^k + \sum_{j \mathop = 0}^{k-1}\binom{k+1}{j}i^j}\right) \\ & = (k+1)\sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n i^k + \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n \sum_{j \mathop = 0}^{k-1}\binom{k+1}{j}i^j & \text{Summation is Linear} \\ & = (k+1)\sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n i^k + \sum_{j \mathop = 0}^{k-1}\sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n \binom{k+1}{j}i^j & \text{Summation is Linear} \\ & = (k+1)\sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n i^k + \sum_{j \mathop = 0}^{k-1}\binom{k+1}{j}\sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n i^j & \text{Summation is Linear} \\ \end{align} $$

On the other hand:

$$ \begin{align} \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n \left({\left({i + 1}\right)^{k+1} - i^{k+1}}\right) & = \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n \left({i + 1}\right)^{k+1} - \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n i^{k+1} & \text{Summation is Linear} \\ & = \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n \left({i + 1}\right)^{k+1} - \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n i^{k+1} + 1^{k+1} - 1^{k+1} \\ & = 1^{k+1} + \sum_{i \mathop = 2}^{n+1} i^{k+1} - \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n i^{k+1} - 1^{k+1} \\ & = \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^{n+1} i^{k+1} - \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n i^{k+1} - 1^{k+1} \\ & = \left({n + 1}\right)^{k+1} + \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n i^{k+1} - \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n i^{k+1} - 1^{k+1} & \text{recursive definition} \\ & = \left({n + 1}\right)^{k+1} - 1 \\ \end{align} $$

Therefore:

$$ \begin{array}{rrl} & \displaystyle (k+1)\sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n i^k + \sum_{j \mathop = 0}^{k-1}\binom{k+1}{j}\sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n i^j & \displaystyle = \left({n + 1}\right)^{k+1} - 1 \\ \implies & \displaystyle (k+1)\sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n i^k & \displaystyle = \left({n + 1}\right)^{k+1} - 1 - \sum_{j \mathop = 0}^{k-1}\binom{k+1}{j}\sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n i^j \\ \end{array} $$

Therefore:

$$ \begin{align} \operatorname{sum\_of\_powers}(k, n) = \sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n i^k & = \frac 1 {k+1} \left({\left({n + 1}\right)^{k+1} - 1 - \sum_{j \mathop = 0}^{k-1}\binom{k+1}{j}\sum_{i \mathop = 1}^n i^j}\right) \\ & = \frac 1 {k+1} \left({\left({n + 1}\right)^{k+1} - 1 - \sum_{j \mathop = 0}^{k-1}\binom{k+1}{j}\operatorname{sum\_of\_powers}(j, n)}\right) \\ \end{align} $$

title: User:Ans/Sum of Sequence of Nth Powers


text:
User:Lamplight360/sandbox

Introduction
Evolutionary psychology is a relatively recent area of academic study in the social and natural sciences, with its most current form having emerged in the 1980s. Given its relative youth as an area of academic interest and the subject’s interrelatedness with biological study, the qualification of substantive evidence in evolutionary psychology draws on the rigorously standardized methods and conventions of evolutionary biology. Considering such a connection, an assessment of what constitutes “evidence” in evolutionary biology more generally is first required.

Evidence in Evolutionary Biology
As in many disciplines, evolutionary biology draws on many sources of primary and secondary evidence. To begin, one such primary source held in near-sanctity in evolutionary biology is the fossil record. As early as 1799, geologist William Smith identified that in undisturbed layers of rock, fossils appeared to be in a sequential order, with the most recent fossils occurring nearer the top of these layers. Such a logical conclusion also lent itself to the construction of an approximate chronology of the fossils which was later corroborated by William Lonsdale in the 1830s.

Truth in Conceptual Engineering
Conceptual engineering has emerged as both a useful methodology and, more broadly, a growing field of metaphysical research and study. A working definition of the field as provided by Australian philosopher David J. Chalmers reads as follows: "Conceptual engineering is the process of designing, implementing, and evaluating concepts." Some may argue the approach of conceptual engineering has been used throughout philosophical history, though it has not been until recent history in which a distinct disciplinary study of conceptual engineering has emerged. The case for conceptual engineering as a discipline seems justifiable insofar as it implements a unique methodology, quite an established lexicon, and a subject matter that while thoroughly considered in other sub-disciplines of metaphysics, presents entirely differently based on the framework conceptual engineering provides.

title: User:Lamplight360/sandbox


text:
User talk:LGreg/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge (LG seminar 2020/21)/Seminar 9/Evidence

Stylistic Edits
It might be a bit premature for stylistic edits, but I’ve capitalized the heading of the first evidence post about EBM to maintain stylistic consistency throughout our user page. Please let me know if this seems like an inappropriate edit.

Lamplight360 (discuss • contribs) 10:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Thank you, I wasn't sure what style others would be using but it's much better to be consistent throughout! Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 12:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I was also wondering what the other contributors think about retroactively grouping the posts by subject matter (i.e. Scientific disciplines in one group, etc.)

Lamplight360 (discuss • contribs) 10:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

 * I think this is a great idea - we can do this once everyone has contributed. Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 12:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

 * I had thought about this. I think this would be an interesting way of formatting it but I would reject a formatting style which requires you to click any more hyperlinks. I think if we're going to group by meta-discipline we should keep them on one page and use larger headings.
 * 5050clown (discuss • contribs) 12:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

 * That's a good point and I agree with what you've said, we don't want to overcomplicate it by adding too many hyperlinks. Using larger headings would be a good alternative, while also making it clear which disciplines have been grouped together. If people are in agreement, we could do this at the end, but please do comment if anyone else has any other ideas that we can consider. Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 12:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on Linguistics portion
I have just finished my sandbox section on linguistics. I thought I'd start a new discussion topic on this in case any discussion wants to be made in relation to my section, as I feel like organisation of the discussion page in this format will be more effective.

5050clown (discuss • contribs) 12:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Your section is really well written and is really concise and easy to read - it's a great addition to the sandbox! Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 06:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Thank you! --5050clown (discuss • contribs) 01:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

 * I like this section too - it's well researched and informative. I hope you don't mind but I added in a definition of what Inuktitut is and also what aphasia is - these are not common words and therefore I felt more definition for the untrained mind would help.Tsarina Catarina (discuss • contribs) 13:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I included a small reference to Saussure and Lévi-Strauss, who both looked at linguistics from an anthropological point of view. I felt they reinforced your argument. Tsarina Catarina (discuss • contribs) 10:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Repeat Referencing
Do any of you know how to indicate repeated references? The bibliography is filled with repeated references/citations (many of them from my own contributions!) Hithertoundreamt (discuss • contribs) 22:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

 * I read the Wikibooks guidance again, and I think the best thing to do is to use the 'named reference' feature when citing, and then when you want to cite the same source again, the process is much quicker and easier. Here's a link which explains it in more detail:

 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Repeated_citations

 * If you go to your own personal draft sandbox, there will be a 'cite' option. If you cite your work using this, there's an option called 'Ref Name'. if you give your reference a name, there's then the option to automatically add the same reference from the toolbar. Would then copy and paste the reference into the seminar sandbox, as the cite option isn't available in the seminar sandbox. I hope that helps! Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 07:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Thank you so much! I'll have a look at the link and try to correct the repetition (in the History section as well!) Hithertoundreamt (discuss • contribs) 01:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Existing & Suggested changes to 'Conflicts with Evidence in EBM (Medicine)' section
I have changed a few intensifiers such as the use of "really" to make the text more descriptive rather than opinion-based, changed a few word choices such as "huge" and contractions like "it's" to fit tonally with the excellent research discussed, and made a few minor formatting changes in terms of spacing and apostrophes. Please do review these if you think they change the meaning of your text.

Apart from this, I was wondering if there are sources for the final few statements made in the 'Conclusion' subsection? Some of the statements were quite strong and absolute, such as "evidence is never factual", which I have edited slightly to "evidence is rarely entirely objective and factual", but the last few statements as a whole can come across as opinions as opposed to descriptions (such as "it is time it stopped being presented as such"), especially since they have not yet been referenced/cited. Once again, please let me know if I have misunderstood/misconstrued your contributions.

Thanks! Hithertoundreamt (discuss • contribs) 23:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Thank you so much for your detailed comments and feedback. I really appreciate the removal of the the intensifiers as I was aware when I writing it of the danger of it becoming too opinion based rather than factual, so thank you! It sounds much more objective and impartial now, which is exactly what it should be. That's a very good point about the concluding statement too, and it's something that hadn't occurred to me. I completely agree, so I will go back and have a look at the statements I've made and see where I can add some citations to reduce the level of personal opinion coming across! Thanks again fro your input, I really appreciate it. Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 07:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

 * I have now edited the EBM section, added references and changed the wording of my statements that came across as opinion based rather than objective. Please do let me know if you have any more comments or if there are still things thatI could do to improve it. Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 08:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Glad I could help! Looks amazing now, definitely comes across as objective, and it's well referenced! Hithertoundreamt (discuss • contribs) 01:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

 * I think this is a great topic, thank you for contributing it. As a big follower of alternative methods, and a proponent and educated in one specialism, I have added in a little paragraph about bridging between traditional methods and EBM methods, a big conflict area, if you would like to check it... just in case. Tsarina Catarina (discuss • contribs) 13:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 * This was a great addition, thank you for taking the time to add this perspective! I've added a couple more sentences to talk about anecdotal evidence and bring another element of evidence to the paragraph, but it's a great idea to mention alternative medicine with the rise in controversy we're seeing today. Thanks again! Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 04:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on Psychology
I added in a little about Cognitive Psychology as it ties in with Evolutionary Psychology. I put in a couple of references from the words you had already used.

Discussion on French Civil Law
I added a reference to French Civil Law written in English, incase anyone would like to read it! I changed some of the grammar and spellings but again, your written English is fantastic. I hope you don't mind.
 * Not at all, thank you so much ! A.ren01 (discuss • contribs) 19:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on Philosophy
I put Empirisisme into the English Empiricism. I changed the English to read a little better, - you write extremely well in English - but there were just a few elements I changed.

Evidence in Evolutionary Psychology
I was wondering the direction the head writer of this section wanted to go with this. I admittedly have very little knowledge of evolutionary psychology, yet I could provide some useful information about the use of evidence in evolutionary biology. I would like to know your plans for the finished section as I don't want to take it in the wrong direction. --5050clown (discuss • contribs) 01:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the ask and have been contemplating the direction for the rest of the entry as well. I feel as though establishing a base-level knowledge of evolutionary biology would be necessary first, in order to then discuss evidence as it's understood in evolutionary psychology.

Lamplight360 (discuss • contribs) 14:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Evidence in art criticism - sentence help
I was doing some proofreading and I found this sentence in the evidence in art criticism section:

"There are four scales of analysis in order to deliver a conform academic critic"

I'm not sure if this makes syntactical sense, but I also don't fully understand the point the sentence is trying to get across. Could the writer of this section make an amendment, or explain what they mean here and I will have a crack at it.

Thanks! --5050clown (discuss • contribs) 01:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I also found the same sentence and believe I've arrived at a sentence which has some added clarity. Please feel free to give my edit a read and let me know your thoughts.

Lamplight360 (discuss • contribs) 16:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Subheadings
Hi all

Some of our sections have headings, and others don't. I'm not sure if formatting homogeneity is necessary in this task, or if it is recognised that the nature of a collaborative sandbox means that different sections will be put together differently. I would love to hear some thoughts on this. 5050clown (discuss • contribs) 01:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

 * I was thinking about this too - I think would be worth adding headings to all sections for continuity, if other people also agree. Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 04:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Homogeneity is really important here, I think. It presents well and makes it look much more organised - I have tried to do some too, and i think if we see things a little out of sync, we should just do it as it was probably an oversight. Tsarina Catarina (discuss • contribs) 09:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 * I've added subheadings to the sections that didn't have any already. I tried to summarise the content of each subsection but feel free to have a look and make changes if the headings don't seem appropriate. Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 11:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Final paragraph on evidence in science.
I was trying to neutralise the wording on the final paragraph in the evidence in science section, but there is a sentence which I am struggling to parse:

"Under COVID, Scotland is the only country in the world that has curated the data, which was published in The Lancet [64], but went unreported in the mass media. No other country has produced this, so when the public asks the questions of the politicians, they do not have the data or evidence to justify their policies. "

I am unsure what "the data" is referring to in this instance, could someone shed s light on what they think this refers to so I can finish off the neutralisation? --5050clown (discuss • contribs) 02:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Thank you! The data is number of cases, number of deaths, how these numbers are broken down, into what classification (age brackets), causes of death (Covid or other) Tsarina Catarina (discuss • contribs) 15:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Ok great, I have amended the sentence. --5050clown (discuss • contribs) 09:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 * THUMBS UP! Tsarina Catarina (discuss • contribs) 13:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Evidence in History
I have edited the grammar and language a little on this entry, I hope you don't mind. Just to make it read more easily. I have contributed some more information about the evaluative nature of secondary sources and that primary sources are authoritative and the advantage anthropological studies can add to primary sources. Tsarina Catarina (discuss • contribs) 15:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi was just proof reading this section and saw that some sources weren't cited properly so I took care of that. Hope that helps ! Velma1234567 (discuss • contribs) 13:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC) Velma1234567


text:
Cookbook:Toaster Oven

Toaster ovens are small-scale conventional ovens and can be used to cook foods other than just toasting. A frontal door is opened, horizontally-oriented bread slices (or other food items) are placed on a rack which has heat elements above and below it, and the door is closed. The controls are set and actuated to toast the bread to the desired doneness, whereupon the heat elements are switched off. In most cases the door must be opened manually, though there are also toaster ovens with doors that open automatically. Because the bread is horizontal, a toaster oven can be used to cook toast with toppings, like garlic bread, melt sandwiches, or toasted cheese. Toaster ovens are generally slower to make toast than pop-up toasters, taking 4–6 minutes as compared to 2–3 minutes. In addition to the automatic-toasting settings, toaster ovens typically have settings and temperature controls to allow use of the appliance as a small oven.

Extra features on toaster ovens can include:
 * Heating element control options, such as a "top brown" setting that powers only the upper elements so food can be broiled without heat from below.
 * Multiple shelf racks – Having options for positioning the oven shelf gives more control over distance between food and the heating element.

title: Cookbook:Toaster Oven


text:
User:LGreg/sandbox/approches to knowledge (LG seminar 2020/21)/Seminar 18/Evidence/Evidence in Economics

Overview
In general, economists are unable to perform controlled experiments due to the complexity of today’s economies as argued by John Stuart Mill. Thus, economists had to establish universal rules such as the rule of diminishing returns and deduce economic implications from those rules. Frank Knight argues that empirical evidence against universal rules of economics like the rule of diminishing returns, does not mean that economists need to change their beliefs about these rules because the rules are simply tendencies that apply in most situations but since our world is extremely complex, exceptions happen often. Thus, evidence from one situation cannot be applied universally because circumstances change rapidly.

Quantitative evidence
Quantitative methods are an extremely important part of economics because they are used to analyze economic data and build economic models, which then yield quantitative evidence. Examples of quantitative methods include statistical analysis and game theory.

Economic models
A large amount of people partake in the economy and all of their decisions have an impact. It is impossible to consider all of them, which is why economists use simplified models of the real world to gain evidence for their predictions and explanations of events Many economic models are mathematical and yield quantitative evidence. When a model is constructed, for example concerning the question of why people choose to work more in some countries than others, economists tailor the models to predict the decisions of an average consumer and extrapolate this evidence to predict trends within the general population. In an effective model, economists try to separate key elements of the question from insignificant ones. The variables deemed insignificant are summarized under the expression ceteris paribus (“all else held constant” ), meaning that all insignificant variables are held constant. Ceteris paribus assumptions usually include variables that are hard to predict (such as a sudden increase in production cost or labour costs) and whose impact is very hard to quantify, e.g. the influence of culture and politics. This means that these models do not reflect reality accurately but they make it easier to make predictions. Of course, economists need to be aware of the assumptions they are making and, when their predictions fail, they need to revise these assumptions. A big part of an economist's work, whether in trying to improve business practices or economic theories, is therefore to understand the possible flaws in the assumptions they are making when creating economic models and using their results as evidence for the prediction of possible economic developments.

Qualitative evidence
Qualitative evidence is rarely used in economics. It is regarded as unreliable and not as useful as quantitative evidence. The concerns are reasonable as, for example, people tend to manipulate undesirable information about themselves when talking to researchers and the amount of research subjects is often not large enough to be representative. However, there has been an increase in mixed qualitative and quantitative research in economics in recent years. Some methods for qualitative research are in-depth interviews, focus groups, and case studies. These methods are used in, for example, determining people’s willingness to pay for environmental interventions. The concerns about a lack of objectiveness in qualitative evidence can be remedied through careful research design. Furthermore, researchers doing qualitative research focus more on description and finding explanations for their hypotheses rather than making a definitive judgement on the validity of the hypothesis. Moreover, qualitative research highlights the perspectives of individuals, which can contribute to the economic knowledge about a research hypothesis. Additionally, qualitative research contributes to better research ethics in economics as qualitative research methods such as interviews that allow the research subjects to influence how their behaviour is represented (which influences policy and thus has a real impact on the research subjects) while traditionally, in economics, economic theory is emphasized and the insights of laypeople are mostly ignored. The above mentioned belief of John Stuart that experiments are rarely possible in economics does not mean that experiments are rarely useful. Experimentation has played a very significant role in economics in resolving the question of whether humans are solely motivated by self-interest (i.e. homo oeconomicus). In recent decades, economists have performed many experiments that prove that humans not only act out of self-interest but also out of, for example, altruism and reciprocity. This, of course, is fundamental for economists because when they make predictions, they cannot rely on the belief that all humans act based solely on their own self-interest.

Natural experiments as evidence
Another way by which economists collect evidence to explain certain correlations or causalities is by collecting data from so-called natural experiments because controlled experiments are often impossible in economics due to the complexity of today's economies. These are studies in which the researchers investigate what happens in the behaviour of people when there is a change in a certain variable in the real world, e.g. government policy changes. However, such experiments need to be treated carefully when it comes to inferring causalities because the research subjects are not randomized into different exposure groups as controlled experiments are, which can distort the results.


text:
Cookbook:Grapefruit Spoon

| Utensil

A grapefruit spoon is a utensil usually similar in design to a teaspoon that tapers to a sharp edge or teeth, the intent of the front serrated blade|serration being to separate the flesh of a grapefruit from its rind. Also called an orange spoon, citrus spoon, and fruit spoon, it is used for other citrus fruits, as well as kiwifruits and melons.

A variation of the design has a blunt front edge with serrated sides, enabling the user to dig the spoon into the fruit before using the serrated side edges as a knife to separate the flesh from the rind.

These spoons are not generally found in most cutlery sets but may be purchased separately.

title: Cookbook:Grapefruit Spoon


text:
Cookbook:Long Island Iced Tea

 * Tea

A Long Island iced tea is a mixed cocktail originating in the prohibition era and made popular in New York speakeasies. Despite its name, the drink does not contain any tea whatsoever.

Ingredients

 * ¼ part vodka
 * ¼ part white rum
 * ¼ part gin
 * ¼ part tequila or triple sec
 * 1 part sweet and sour mix OR lemon/lime juice to taste
 * 1 splash cola or coffee liqueur
 * Lemon, sliced for garnish

Shaken method

 * 1) Shake all the ingredients except the cola with ice in a cocktail shaker.
 * 2) Strain into a highball glass.
 * 3) Float the cola on the top and serve with a lemon slice.

Stirred method

 * 1) Fill a highball glass until it's almost full with ice.
 * 2) Add vodka, gin, rum, and tequila.
 * 3) Add sweet and sour mix, leaving some room on top.
 * 4) Splash in the cola and enjoy.

Notes, tips, and variations

 * Don't forget—it has to look like an iced tea, so don't add too much cola.
 * To make a Long Beach Tea, use cranberry juice instead of cola.

title: Cookbook:Long Island Iced Tea


text:
Cookbook:Strawberry Daiquiri

The strawberry daiquiri is a cocktail composed mainly of rum, schnapps, and strawberries. It can be shaken or puréed in a blender for a smooth consistency.

Ingredients

 * Strawberry juice, for rim
 * Sugar, for rim
 * 1 oz light rum
 * ½ oz strawberry schnapps
 * 1 oz lime juice
 * 2 tsp powdered sugar
 * 2 oz fresh or frozen strawberries
 * Crushed ice
 * Whipped cream, for garnish
 * Fresh strawberry, for garnish

Procedure

 * 1) Rim a glass in strawberry juice and sugar.
 * 2) Shake rum, schnapps, lime juice, powdered sugar, strawberries, and crushed ice in a cocktail shaker.
 * 3) Pour into the rimmed glass.
 * 4) Garnish with whipped cream and a whole fresh strawberry.
 * 5) Serve.

title: Cookbook:Strawberry Daiquiri


text:
World Stamp Catalogue/Stamps on Gandhi

Post the issuance of stamps on his 150th birth anniversary in 2019, Mahatma Gandhi has become the individual whose is featured in most number of postage stamps in the world surpassing Winston Churchill, who had earlier achieved this by surpassing Christopher Columbus.

title: World Stamp Catalogue/Stamps on Gandhi


text:
User:LGreg/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge (LG seminar 2020/21)/Seminar 18/Truth

This is the sandbox page for the issue: Truth.


text:
User:LGreg/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge (LG seminar 2020/21)/Seminar 18/Truth/Theories of Truth

The correspondence theory of truth
The correspondence theory of truth dates back to the Greek philosophers Aristotle and Plato. This theory states that “the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e. corresponds with) that world. It outlines the idea that the truth of a statement is directly related to how it relates to the world. It aims to look at if this “truth” corresponds with the world and our reality. A statement that corresponds with the world/our reality would be considered true using this theory, while an idea that does not correspond with our world would be considered false. This theory of truth is one of the most common and popular when trying to understand the nature of truth. When determining if something is true or not using the correspondence theory of truth we should consider if the statement: corresponds to the facts, is part of a coherent system and works with what we already know about the world.

The coherence theory of truth
The coherence theory of truth is based on the assumption that something must be true if it corresponds to other things that we consider to be true already (in other words it does not contradict something we already believe to be true). However, often this contradicts scientific theories because often new discoveries do not correspond with our previous beliefs.

The pragmatic theory of truth
This theory is based on the assumption that something must be true if the information it provides is considered useful. Whether or not it aligns with our previous beliefs (coherence theory) or if it corresponds with our reality is not considered to be important. If the knowledge has a high “utility” it is considered to be true. A criticism of this theory however is that a statement that one person might find useful to believe, will not be useful to another and therefore they might find it more useful to consider it to be false. A person's actions might be influenced by what they chose to believe due to its personal utility.


text:
User talk:LGreg/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge (LG seminar 2020/21)/Seminar 18/Evidence in aeronautics

I would review the citations, they are not in the Vancouver format. You can use citethisforme.com to do that.

 * Here's also a resource useful for referencing: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/administration-and-support-services/library/public/vancouver.pdf Andreilla.m.l (discuss • contribs) 14:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


text:
Cookbook talk:Raisin Oatmeal Muffins

Are the oats suppose to be cooked oats or uncooked oats

Oats
Are the oats suppose to be cooked oats or uncooked oats Thanks in advance😁 Ka3naBeyond (discuss • contribs) 14:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Cookbook talk:Raisin Oatmeal Muffins


text:
User talk:LGreg/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge (LG seminar 2020/21)/Seminar 18/Evidence

I've categorised the page content in terms of general fields. Do people prefer the inclusion of many hyperlinks redirecting to different pages (like currently), or would you rather all the content was formatted onto a single page with many sub-headings instead? Andreilla.m.l (discuss • contribs) 14:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

This way it is perfect: very clear! Thank you very much for your contribution!--Legrandherbage (discuss • contribs) 15:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


text:
User:LGreg/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge (LG seminar 2020/21)/Seminar 18/Power

This is the sandbox page for the issue: Power.


text:
User:LGreg/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge (LG seminar 2020/21)/Seminar 12/Truth

This is the sandbox page for the issue: Truth.

Bias in algorithm : how the truth of some social studies can be doubted ?
Nowadays, algorithms are used to try and solve problems in different disciplines. They are mostly known for their use in mathematics and engineering but in reality, a large part of them are designed to be used in social sciences to study social issues. Those social sciences are the disciplines we are going to focus on today.

Even though the algorithms are supposed to be a mirror of reality, sometimes the truth of their assertion can be revised. Indeed, during the conception of algorithms, some biases are unintentionally introduced. Those biases often come from the creator but also from the society in which they live. Indeed, discrimination and differences of representation of different social groups can appear involuntarily in the sample group and have an impact on the finished algorithm. For instance, Amazon used an algorithm to go through all the resumes of the job candidates. However, this algorithm was based on the selected candidates’ resume from the last decade. Thus, in 2015, it was discovered that this algorithm was not gender-neutral and was in fact disadvantageous to women because in the last 10 years, most of Amazon’s employees were men and so the word « women » was classified as detrimental. Some similar discriminations were found in other algorithms such as face recognition ones and touched black-skinned people. In fact, studies have even shown that specifically dark-skinned women face a high probability of being faultily classified by such algorithms, with error rates being more than a third higher than when it comes to men with lighter skin colour.

Thereby, we can say that the truth of algorithms is relative to the sample data and it can not be absolute because there will always be some unintentional biases that will lead to false or partly-true results. However, some groups are looking into mechanisms of preventing these biasses in algorithms, so they might be more accurate in the future.

''This whole article is based on the reading of : Jean A. De l'autre côté de la machine. Voyage d'une scientifique au pays des algorithmes. 1st ed. Humensis; 2019.''

Introduction
Even though history strives to be the positivist and evidence-based discipline, it can’t run away from some of the problems, especially when it comes to evaluating particular events’ and people’s impact on the course of history, as well as their causes. History’s positivist nature is eminent only when talking about the facts (what still isn’t entirely positivist, the examples being often biased and emotional personal testimonies and other types of secondary sources), however it is important to note that history’s goal isn’t to barely store the information about past events, but also to seek connection between them.

Coexistence vs correlation vs causation
The main task when evaluating the relationship between some historical events is to specify what is the type of this relationship. Was one of the events directly (or indirectly) caused by another or maybe it was just an unspecified and unclear corelation. It is also possible that the events that were happening at the same time were merely coexistent and there was no connection between them other than the spatial-temporal coincidence.

An example of the Industrial Revolution in UK
The vast majority of historians agrees that the an event called the Industrial Revolution took place, and that it started in the United Kingdom. However the reasons behind its emergence at this specific time and place are not nearly as clear as that. Different historians formulated different theories regarding this case:

•	Kenneth Pomeranz attributes the appearance of the Industrial Revolution to the resources available to the people of Britain – both rich coal deposits and relatively easy access to the colonial goods were (in his opinion) the main factors behind that.

•	Other academic historian, Joel Mokyr, claims that the Enlightenment was the main reason behind this event – it changed previous ways of approaching knowledge and allowed to make practical use of it.

•	Theory presented by Gregory Clark differs from the ones mentioned above, as it focuses on cultural characteristics of the British people rather than their technological advantage. In his opinion, qualities like hard work and the ability to save money were more desired in this society, what is often connected to the dominant religion of this time – Protestantism. These qualities are said to promote innovations and eventually lead to the Industrial Revolution. .

Truth in Natural Sciences
Natural Sciences was created to explore and therefore mirror the world using the methods from different disciplines. So, to an extent, it can shape how society views the world today and all through the years, society had always played a large part in accepting these "truths".

Research is Positivist and Empirical
Truth in natural sciences relies heavily on seen evidence and observations which appears to give it a heavy [|positivist] and empirical approach in research. Starting with the bigger picture, after the development of telescopes, from the 17th century, it was accepted as a fact that Earth was merely a planet orbiting the sun rather than what society thought was the opposite. Scientists also have a strong idea of what the DNA looks like by combining chemistry (the analysis of bases) and x-ray (the double helix structure)- through repetition and experimentation.

Research is accepted by the Society
However, the "truth" is only accepted if society accepts it. Peer-reviewed papers are to ensure the validity of the content and the more an article had been peer-reviewed and assessed, the more "accurate" the knowledge is. Grants are given if the researcher "sold their idea" convincingly.

A well-known example that caused a lot of controversies would be the theory of evolution. When Origin of the Species was released, there was a major backlash as, at that time, the majority of society believed that humans were created in God's image rather than descendants of animals. The Bible is also known to hold the ultimate truth- the "Word". It is still a divided topic as both Natural Sciences and Religion both, in a way, view themselves to have positivist evidence- either one is right and the other is wrong. It goes back to the core, the values and even identity which is probably why it took a long time to accept. However, as society changes, the theory of Evolution is now more widely received in the Sciences- appearing in education. Therefore, Natural Sciences can be considered to have aspects of constructivism- truth constructed by the society and culture one is in and brought up in.

So, Natural Sciences has the intention of giving positivist data- by collecting data, doing numerous trials, repeats etc with the impact of the society's opinion.

Origins of Phrenology
Phrenology is the science of assigning traits or intellectual capacity to an individual based on skull formation, under the belief that each portion of the brain holds a distinct function. Joseph Franz Gall, who popularized phrenology in the first half of the 19th century, made it a point to demonstrate empirical evidence and correlational examples. This would be a form of positivist truth, had Gall's research techniques been somewhat less dubious. However, his medical degree and access to various cutting-edge medical facilities, as well as his enormous collection of skulls, gave his research the authority prove his theory: that the human brain and skull were instruments through which “Nature” of humans were demonstrated, disregarding the difficulty of quantifying such a concept.

Popular Reception Through Lectures
Gall’s research was popularized through his lecture tours that were marketed not only towards a scientific audience, but also an elite one. This was quite rare at the time, because scientific research was less of a matter of public interest than it is now. By turning a profit on each lecture and winning over the public with charismatic speaking and presentation skills, as well as refusing to publish in medical journals, Gall made enemies within both the scientific and religious communities.

Debunking
Part of his work was actually correct: different parts of the brain correspond to different functions. However, much of Gall’s work was specifically based on the observation and measurement of skulls of individuals with specifically extreme traits, such as murder or intelligence. This would possibly lead to a form of interpretive truth, due to the classification of individuals based on specific actions or attributes, where conclusions are drawn after the categories are created, and without regard to other factors. It was argued to be somewhat biased, even during the peak of phrenology’s popularity. However, the attention it gained in spite of the questionable empirical evidence demonstrated both the lack of official scientific standards existing during the time period, allowing unreviewed 'truths' to be disseminated, as well as the power of presentation in convincing an audience. The real truth behind phrenology was arguably constructed to prove Gall’s views, yet it persisted through clever marketing and a solid enough basic foundation. When it fell out of fashion, there was relatively little dissent because there was not a lot of data to definitively disprove, and it quietly mixed into other disciplines like neurology that advanced with a more objective framework. While truth can be used a a form of authoritative power, power, especially of the intellectual kind, can be used to shape truth, as seen here within Gall's success.

What are Biochemistry and Positivism?
Biochemistry is a form of science that connects biology and chemistry. It’s based on understanding the chemical processes at a molecular level of living beings. Positivism is a philosophy that states that the only truth comes from understandings through observation. In other words, the point of view of the researcher has no role in his research. Everything is discovered with the help of data interpretation. Thus, biochemistry is more positivist.

How is Biochemistry Positivist?
Biochemistry heavily relies on using experimental methods to observe certain processes in our organisms, using the results found and quantifying it to extract important information. The only moment in which a chemist would use their own opinion would be before research began. A chemist would propose a hypothesis about a certain function that an enzyme would have for example and through extensive lab work and research would prove if they were wrong or right. But in no way, would a chemist distort the data found to be able to confirm their hypothesis.

Conclusion
To put it in a nutshell, biochemistry is positivist just like most sciences since it’s solely based on discovering things through the collection and interpretation of data. Some sciences, like neurosciences, do have certain aspects where the view of the researcher affects the experiment such as consciousness. However, it is not the case when it comes to biochemistry.

Religious studies
Religious studies emerged in the 19th century as an attempt to understand the impact and relationship between humans and religions. It was brought up at about the same time as sociology, economics, anthropology during the enlightenment age when one of the most important ideas of the time was to put the man at the centre of the knowledge. The study of religion was very talked-about as everyone wanted to study it in a different way and most disagreed on the methods and topics that needed to be covered.

This discipline was first brought up to try and understand beliefs but also to interpret and compare different religions. When studying religions, history and philosophy are two disciplines that cross religious studies.

Can we have truth in religious studies? How do we study a discipline that isn’t founded on evidence?
Religion is a very complicated subject to treat because it is not based solely on evidence. A religion cannot be verified through books and most of the time, to have the truth we need evidence. There is truth in the historical side of most religions because they are based on events that people were able to prove.

Talking about truth and religion is a very difficult task because according to the professor Dewi Zephaniah Phillips to understand religion you need to have a religious understanding rather than criteria of truth. He is not saying that truth cannot be put into religion and used, but more than it’s a personal truth that changes with people. To him, the understanding of religion is not about the correct knowledge that we have and the truth we have learned from it but rather the ‘personal’ kind of truth.

Truth in religion is more about the truth that you understand with yourself. The more you try and find a scientific truth or proof of religious beliefs, the personal belief diminishes because religion is founded on the fact that we don’t know everything. The truth in religion can therefore be perceived either as relative or subjective.

However, religious studies are still taught which means that they still have some truth in them or that we can at least use them to understand something else. The paradox about religion is that sometimes we don’t need to know why but just to believe and build from there. Indeed if it was made clear that religions and Gods did not exist no one would believe in them, but it has been one of the most persistent forces in the history of humanity.

Revelatory Truth Within Religion
Finding personal truth within religion can occur in multiple ways. Aside from being born into a religion and learning about it from family or community, revelatory truth can also be a factor. Sometimes in instances of deep thought or meditation, more active brain signals can be observed, especially in the frontal lobe, which plays a part in various high-level brain processes. Because religion can activate these functions, it suggests that full belief of the truth of a religion can create a real effect and a better experience for those who partake in it.

Introduction
As social media takes an increasing place in today's’ society, fake news and misinformation are emerging through all social media platforms. More and more people are starting to rely on social media as a source of news. In 2018 it was said that about two-thirds of American adults (68%) occasionally got their news on social media. Consequently untrue content could influence audiences unable to distinguish truth from fact or news from propaganda. This matters especially when politics is at stake, for example in time of presidential elections, especially when presidential campaigns are half spent on social networks.

Fact Checking
Fact-checking is basically the process of checking that all the facts in a piece of writing, a news article, a speech, etc. are correct. It is supposed to also apply to social media's content, however, big platforms such as Twitter, Instagram or Facebook can have a difficult time fact-checking all of the information as on average, every second around 6,000 tweets are tweeted, which means that over 350,000 are sent per minute, 500 million per day so around 200 billion of them per year. . Fact-checking in fact became a professional activity and fact-checkers are more and more targeted with online harassment or legal action. To the point where organizations emerged to help fact-checkers continue their important work. For example, The Fact-Checkers Legal Support Initiative (FLSI) is an organization that connects fact-checkers with pro bono lawyers and help them to pay legal fees, and provides guidance on legal and non-legal issues.

An example of truth in social media that can sometimes be biased is in China. China is known to be a country where 'fake news' and 'rumors' are constantly being censored in the social media platform 'Weibo', the biggest social media blog in the country. The company, jointly with the government is removing 'inappropriate' content, or what they call 'rumors' which can be defined as pieces of information that haven't been authorized by the government when reliable information isn't available. In China, finding truth in social media but also from what the government says is incredibly difficult because the only source of information doesn't reflect reality and therefore the truth. In the social media 'Weibo', reliable information that isn't approved by the government is removed from the platform or either discredited even if the 'rumor' is true.

Social Media and Politics
As said before, politicians tend to more and more use social media as a tool for their campaign, as it is a direct and simple way to communicate with their supporters. Consequently, it is important that their content is true and fact-checked, as they are the leaders of our world. Recently, Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States received severe backlash over the spread of misinformation regarding the content of a certain amount of his tweets. Without providing evidence, he tweeted, talking about the 2020 United States presidential election: " "There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent.". His fact being untrue, unjustified, and unfounded, Twitter responded by "flagging" his tweet and labeling it as "unsubstantiated". Plus, during the Covid-19 pandemic, a numerous number of untrue statements had been made via the Tweeter platform. In response to that, Tweeter decided to update its approach to misleading information. . The goal being to have a "true" based platform, they decided to introduce "new labels and warning messages that will provide additional context and information on some Tweets containing disputed or misleading information related to COVID-19." Plus, if a statement is declared "untrue", Tweeter will proceed to the removal of the tweet.

Introduction
Mathematics are the discipline dealing first and foremost with numbers and their operations. Whether the laws, theories and assumptions we make in mathematics are true, is a very controversial topic. Some argue that they are simply an invention of humanity and that we create this knowledge merely for our own convenience. This is supported by the fact that experiments have shown that human brains and even some animals’ brains are wired to think mathematically and have an innate sense for integers, especially since the world around us consists of discrete, quantifiable objects. However, others say that mathematics is to be discovered rather than made up since the universe seems to be following mathematical rules that are a given and therefore a truth that cannot emerge solely from our own creativity.

Axioms and theorems
Within the field of mathematics itself, a theory needs proof before it is regarded as “true”. When we manage to prove a theory to be true, it becomes a theorem that in turn can be used to explain or derive other theorems. Theorems themselves, however, are built on axioms, which are theories that are accepted by scientists and mathematicians, but for which we have no proof. Despite that, as one cannot prove anything without making fundamental assumptions beforehand, they are essential starting points for theorems. The theories we derive from axioms are meant to build a whole network of theorems, branching out into different fields of the discipline. Therefore, different areas in mathematics find their origin in different axioms. What mathematicians cannot seem to agree on, though, is whether we even have enough axioms from which to derive the “whole mathematical truth”.

Complex numbers
An example of a branch of mathematics, that has been “invented” by humans is imaginary numbers. However, complex numbers, that consist of imaginary numbers, have proven themselves to be very useful and influential in science. They are applied in electrical engineering, where they are used to describe electromagnetic waves and current, and even in weather forecasting. Of course, this goes back to the idea that mathematics is just a system that we use for our own benefit. However, all this does raise the question, whether the concept of complex numbers does not become more “true”, simply because it works in empirical contexts.

Is mathematics invented or discovered?
As outlined above, mathematics is the discipline concerned with numbers and shapes, relying heavily (perhaps more so than other disciplines) on logic. However, a question that has been hotly debated for a long time is whether mathematics is discovered or invented, in other words whether it is a positivist or constructivist truth. A positivist approach to mathematics is called realism, and a constructivist approach is called anti-realism.

Realism
Realism is the positivist approach to mathematics. The most popular realist view is Platonism, which postulates that mathematics exists on a separate plane such that it is abstract, meaning it exists outside of space (non-spacial) and time (non-temporal), and is non-mental, as it exists outside of ideas or concious entities. It also implies mathematics is acausal, as you can't directly interact with mathematical concepts (you cannot pick up a constant), and eternal and unchanging. This view implies that mathematics consists of abstract objects, laws which govern our universe, which exist independently of humans and can be discovered by them. A compelling piece of evidence for this idea is how oftentimes equations developed in a field of mathematics at the time regarded as purely theoretical end up present in the world around us, or useful for development of other disciplines. Similarly, often mathematical models provide unexpectedly high precision of answers.

Anti-realism
There are several versions of anti-realism, but their core assertion is that there are no abstract mathematical objects existing independent of human action. Formalism, conventionalism and deductivism are such theories. These hold that mathematical theories are not universal truths uncovered by humans by logic and reason, but rather arise from sets of rules that humans create. Thus, in these views a mathematical model is good if it has no internal contradictions. We use these models to approximate reality, but they are not their inherent property. This is a constructivist view of mathematics.

Art and truth
Art represents forms of truth based on individual experiences, perceptions and interpretations of the world around us, both on behalf of the creator of art and on behalf of the consumer of art. Truths in art are not universal or absolute, neither are they evidence based or empirical, hence they may not conform to one’s initial associations with the concept of truth. However, this is not to say that there is no truth in art. Truths in art are more likely to be subjective or relative, yet truths nonetheless.

Alexander Sesonske on truth in art
Sesonske claims that there is a divide in the debate regarding the presence and function of truth in art between those who deny the connection between art and truth and discredit art with being able to discover truths and obtain knowledge; and those who recognise the connection between art and truth and see the truths in art as “extra-scientific”, “pre-scientific” or “super-scientific”. Sesonske also presents an idea of three forms of truth relevant in art. He calls them surface truths, embedded truths and embodied truths. He claims these three forms of truth have varying degrees of aesthetic importance. Sesonske’s analysis focuses mainly on literary art forms however, he does also discuss truth in the painting Guernica (Picasso, 1937) arguing that the painting depicts embodied truths about the nature of people and war.

Herman Rapaport on truth in art
Rapaport approaches several forms of art in the quote: “Perspective, in short, was viewed as itself the truth in painting, just as harmony in music would much later establish itself as the truth in sound.”. This quote relies on a more abstract conception of truth, placing emphasis on trends of truth in art during the Renaissance. Rapaport suggests that when truth is not directly presented in visual art, in for example an realistic use of perspective in painting, it criticises the truths of the environment in which it was created. He uses the example of Marcel Duchamp, Eva Hesse and Jackson Pollock to state that “What links (them) is that in each case critics locate the truth of their work in their resistance as artists to the cultural establishment around them.”. Truth in art must not necessarily be explicit, but can be found through analysing a work of art in its context.

Conclusion
Truth in art is relative and subjective to the preconceptions, identities and personal experiences of both the creator and consumer. Truths, according to Sesonske can be surface, embedded or embodied and according to Rapaport can criticise the existing truths in their spatial and temporal contexts. Truth in art is not measurable or testable yet important nonetheless.

Truth in History
The discipline of history seeks to recount and analyse important events from the past. History has been a discipline that has been studied for centuries, however historical writings have gained validity in evidence throughout time, with the lines between fact and myth being quite blurred in ancient times compared to the use of census and even photographic media to evidence events in the more recent past. History can draw upon both qualitative and quantitative evidence, often used in tandem with each other in order to help historians draw conclusions.

The role of bias in the historical discipline
Bias affects the way that history is recounted and displayed. This is present throughout both historical writings as well as the way that history is taught in schools and universities, for example many history textbooks are made with sponsorship from national governments, in order to paint themselves in a more positive perspective.

Whilst especially in more recent history, we have empirical data to help us recount history, lots of the truth in historical writings and textbooks is subjective rather than objective as it is difficult for historians to discuss history without imposing their own opinions.

Conclusion
In the historical discipline, whilst truth and fact can be used to describe past events, the nature of the discipline allows historians to introduce their own views and opinions onto the periods of time that they are describing in order to interpret and analyse.

Even with facts, whilst they can be construed as being difficult to question their validity, they can be framed in different lights to be favourable to the opinions of those who are writing or discussing them. This often prevents history from ever being able to have absolute truths within historians' writings and books rather being a discipline that can be described more commonly as having relative truth to it.