Evidence: An Interdisciplinary Conversation About Knowing and Certainty

The conference will bring together academic scholars, public policy makers, non-governmental advocates, and media experts to discuss the state of “evidence” today. Our goal is to examine the use of evidence – from massive data sets to individual case studies – within and across the disciplines. What counts as evidence in different fields? Why do some disciplines have explicit and broadly-shared norms of evidence gathering and use, while other disciplines are guided by more implicit evidentiary customs? Why do evidentiary norms change over time in a given discipline, and are these changes better explained by internal, theoretical developments or external, social factors? What happens when new theories outpace a discipline’s current evidentiary practices? For instance, the recognition that many accurate descriptions of the universe are not deterministic but rather probabilistic has altered natural scientists’ basic conception about what counts as evidence – and about the sheer quantity of evidence needed to prove or disprove hypotheses. Yet even the most advanced tools for evidence-gathering (statistical, computational, and experimental) have not kept pace with this turn to probabilistic models in the natural sciences. Meanwhile, scholars in the humanities, social sciences, and law are adopting – or transforming – these same tools in an effort to expand the evidence base, rigor of proof, and public appeal of their disciplines (e.g., “big” history,  “distant reading,” digital humanities, quantitative sociology, experimental philosophy, law and cognition).











When: Fri., April 21, 2017 - Sat., April 22, 2017 at 9:00 am
Where: Columbia University
116th St. & Broadway
212-854-1754
Price: Free
Click here to buy tickets or for more information from the venue's website
See other events in these categories:

The conference will bring together academic scholars, public policy makers, non-governmental advocates, and media experts to discuss the state of “evidence” today. Our goal is to examine the use of evidence – from massive data sets to individual case studies – within and across the disciplines. What counts as evidence in different fields? Why do some disciplines have explicit and broadly-shared norms of evidence gathering and use, while other disciplines are guided by more implicit evidentiary customs? Why do evidentiary norms change over time in a given discipline, and are these changes better explained by internal, theoretical developments or external, social factors? What happens when new theories outpace a discipline’s current evidentiary practices? For instance, the recognition that many accurate descriptions of the universe are not deterministic but rather probabilistic has altered natural scientists’ basic conception about what counts as evidence – and about the sheer quantity of evidence needed to prove or disprove hypotheses. Yet even the most advanced tools for evidence-gathering (statistical, computational, and experimental) have not kept pace with this turn to probabilistic models in the natural sciences. Meanwhile, scholars in the humanities, social sciences, and law are adopting – or transforming – these same tools in an effort to expand the evidence base, rigor of proof, and public appeal of their disciplines (e.g., “big” history,  “distant reading,” digital humanities, quantitative sociology, experimental philosophy, law and cognition).