The epistemology of scientific evidence

Walton, Douglas; Zhang, Nanning

doi:10.1007/s10506-012-9132-9

Cited by 27 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…145-156). For these reasons CAS fits the epistemology of scientific evidence (ESE) model (Walton & Zhang, 2013). This model has been applied to the analysis and evaluation of expert testimony as evidence in law.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On a razor's edge: evaluating arguments from expert opinion

Walton

2013

Argument & Computation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper takes an argumentation approach to find the place of trust in a method for evaluating arguments from expert opinion. The method uses the argumentation scheme for argument from expert opinion along with its matching set of critical questions. It shows how to use this scheme in three formal computational argumentation models that provide tools to analyse and evaluate instances of argument from expert opinion. The paper uses several examples to illustrate the use of these tools. A conclusion of the paper is that from an argumentation point of view, it is better to critically question arguments from expert opinion than to accept or reject them based solely on trust.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On a razor's edge: evaluating arguments from expert opinion

Walton

2013

Argument & Computation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lastly, the scientific method is nowadays not monolithic and there are multiple variations of the general workflow commented on here [ 10 ]. This plurality of scientific methods may correspond to the different phases of discovery in diverse disciplines, the nature of the problems tackled, or even the styles of thinking belonging to different scientific communities.…”

Section: The Scientific Methods and The Role Of Mathematical Modellmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mathematical Modelling in Biomedicine: A Primer for the Curious and the Skeptic

Vera

Lischer

Nenov

et al. 2021

IJMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In most disciplines of natural sciences and engineering, mathematical and computational modelling are mainstay methods which are usefulness beyond doubt. These disciplines would not have reached today’s level of sophistication without an intensive use of mathematical and computational models together with quantitative data. This approach has not been followed in much of molecular biology and biomedicine, however, where qualitative descriptions are accepted as a satisfactory replacement for mathematical rigor and the use of computational models is seen by many as a fringe practice rather than as a powerful scientific method. This position disregards mathematical thinking as having contributed key discoveries in biology for more than a century, e.g., in the connection between genes, inheritance, and evolution or in the mechanisms of enzymatic catalysis. Here, we discuss the role of computational modelling in the arsenal of modern scientific methods in biomedicine. We list frequent misconceptions about mathematical modelling found among biomedical experimentalists and suggest some good practices that can help bridge the cognitive gap between modelers and experimental researchers in biomedicine. This manuscript was written with two readers in mind. Firstly, it is intended for mathematical modelers with a background in physics, mathematics, or engineering who want to jump into biomedicine. We provide them with ideas to motivate the use of mathematical modelling when discussing with experimental partners. Secondly, this is a text for biomedical researchers intrigued with utilizing mathematical modelling to investigate the pathophysiology of human diseases to improve their diagnostics and treatment.

show abstract

“…Inquiry is a very different setting for argumentation and proof than advocacy. Inquiry is an attempt to discover the truth of some questions, and the obligation of a scientist is to seek out all the evidence he can, to assess its worth as impartially as possible, and to draw conclusions only if the evidence warrants doing so (Walton and Zhang, ). Advocacy is an attempt to make a case for the truth of some questions and the obligation of an attorney is to find and present evidence favoring the proposition to be proved (Haack , 207).…”

Section: Current Legal Methods For Assessing Expertise In the Courtromentioning

confidence: 99%

An Argumentation Interface for Expert Opinion Evidence

Walton

Zhang²

2016

Ratio Juris

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tribunals have come to depend increasingly on expertise for determining the facts in cases. However, current legal methods have proved problematic to work with. This paper argues that, as a special model of public understanding of science, assessing expertise should consider source credibility of expertise from internal aspects, including scientific validity and reliability, and external aspects involving the credibility of experts. Using the Carneades Argumentation System we show that the internal and the external aspects are mediated by the structure of the argument from expert opinion with its matching set of critical questions.

show abstract

The epistemology of scientific evidence

Cited by 27 publications

References 41 publications

On a razor's edge: evaluating arguments from expert opinion

On a razor's edge: evaluating arguments from expert opinion

Mathematical Modelling in Biomedicine: A Primer for the Curious and the Skeptic

An Argumentation Interface for Expert Opinion Evidence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About