Surname 1

Student’s Name

Professor’s Name

Course

Date

Is what is considered as good evidence the same in different areas of knowledge?

Over time, the principle of proof, particularly concerning epistemology, has become an important

aspect in the creation of information. Experts in diverse fields of expertise depend on facts to

obtain insight to the truth regarding various facets of our lives. Therefore, based on this claim, they

ought to focus on good data that is not skewed by aspects such as bias to provide accurate

information. In this situation, information mediates by facilitating the attempts of the knowers to

offer a valid interpretation or precise image of the universe. Well-supported proof fundamentally

attempts to determine what is valid and what is not. In this case, the prescribed title requires one

to analyze the degree to which good evidence is equal within the numerous areas of expertise. In

this case, proof refers to facts or statistics used to validate or contradict a particular hypothesis.

Proof is considered the basis on which experts rationally differentiate between two full

representations of truth in the process of knowledge production. In relation to this statement, it is

indispensable to consider what constitutes good facts and what does not to comprehend the correct

operation of knowledge. For epistemology, according to Joyce (298), strong proof is key as it

reflects justified conviction, which is an integral and central feature of the development of truth.

The argument that proof is inseparable from justification preferably posits that in diverse fields of

science, the notion of strong evidence is normative. Alternatively, the essence of experience in

various fields is likely to impair the interpretation of successful proof by the experts. Is strong
 Surname 2

proof in the various fields of science a universal notion? This article seeks to affirm and prove that

what constitutes as good proof is equivalent within the numerous fields of education by analyzing

the sciences of human and history as well.

Human Sciences

Sufficient evidence in human research, as with other fields of knowledge, is what constitutes to

the creation of the facts and truth production. Such evidence, therefore, is a term that transcends

the borders of vast AOKs. In human research, by testing assumptions that are backed by substantial

evidence, experts aim to create the foundation of knowledge. Because of the dependence of this

AOK on the empirical methods, the ability of evidence to back the conviction of an authority is

highly dependent on its capacity to provide logical conclusions. The degree to which the essence

of the current facts may be determined through science is its relation to the reality. Credible

evidence in human sciences thus establishes a minimum level through which specialists support

or dismiss particular statements or findings of expertise. Similar to a court of law, the facts

provided in this AOK must point out the truth of a particular theory or argument above reasonable

doubt. The dependence of human research on scientific experimentation suggests that proof needs

to create understanding that approximates the facts. Among other fields of science, the case is the

same, where proof has to correlate with the facts ideally. Over time, knowledge gathered by

cumulative experiences has established a more substantive context for the interpretation of

evidence. Thus, sense interpretation becomes an integral WOK when it comes to the quantification

of facts. Scientists decide easily what information is considered good and how it fits with the

science creation process by making hypotheses. This factor can also be discovered when

researching the field of human perception in the field of psychology. Elizabeth F. Loftus designed

a hypothesis few decades ago in the process of researching the facet of memory alteration to form
 Surname 3

the foundation the False Memory Research (Patihis, Frenda and LePort). She, initially, scrutinized

how a person’s environment can taint their memory and perception orientations. Still, her peers

disapproved her hypothesis, arguing that the notion of distorted memories was basically thought-

provoking the universally and commonly accepted ways of recuperating from memory repressions.

Consequently, various experiment were conducted to disapprove Loftus critics as well as affirm

her hypothesis that indeed, a person’s memory could be altered (Koriat, Pansky and Goldsmith).

Deese-Roediger-McDermott is an ideal example. In the study, the resulted complemented lotus’s

research though substantive evidence. The research affirmed that, because human sciences’ access

to truth by experts, it is equivalent to other vast areas of knowledge.

As an alternative, it can be argued that there is lack of compatibility between the evidence provided

by human sciences and other knowledge areas. The assertion can be justified and backed by the

evidence from various studies which indicate that AOK produce subjective evidence which is open

for different human interpretations. Furthermore, other areas of knowledge focus on specific parts

of reality and ignore the rest. Disciplines, such as economy, utilize highly the mathematical models

which can only illustrate specific and reduced facets of reality. In the approximation of truth, the

production of evidence is never sufficient. As a result, there is a difference that cannot be ignored

between what is deemed as good proof in the human sciences and substantial evidence in other

areas of knowledge. For example, the evidence presented by a Harvard report indicated that the

dependence of evidence generated by models by experts prior to the 2008 financial crisis was not

enough to provide sufficient evidence that could mitigate the situation. The neoclassical model

among other approaches used by experts, facilitated a critical prediction that house market values

were to remain stable despite the economic catastrophe. Thus, the scenario was an evidence to

prove that human sciences sometimes have shortcomings that limits the experts’ access to truth.
 Surname 4

In such AOK, good evidence proved to not always be credible in knowledge production. The

shortcomings can also be assumed in other areas of knowledge.

History

The nature of historical research make history as an AOK to have credible proof that complements

similar assertions and concepts provided by other AOKs. The assumption is consistent with the

principles that dictates the production of knowledge in history. Since historians do not possess the

ability to make evaluation in secondary and primary sources pertaining a specific event in history,

they must turn to evidence for factual significance. They analyze the evidence to determine

whether it is good and credible before using it to make assumptions. Eventually, historians find

themselves dependent on inductive, deductive, and casual reasons to determine how a historical

event or narrative can explained using the evidence. This approach is analogous to other

approaches or processes employed in other fields of expertise. In addition, recent growths in

technology aim to protect historical records. The technology allows a bettered access to facts for

experts and therefore shapes their experience of historical events. As long as this proof encourages

historians to construct new views that pursue a reasoned development, then it is recognized as fine.

The proof provided by history experts using the carbon dating of rocks discovered in the Karoo

Basin, South Africa, in 2009, is a perfect recent example. Through the evidence, it was discovered

that a rare species identified as Dicynodon, a very crucial component of the Permian –Triassic

Extinction has disappeared more than one million years before the historic discovery (Hurley).

Since the evidence improved the historian’s understanding and was discovered through a credible

process, it was considered important and useful. Such a cases and occurrence confirm that indeed,

the notion of good proof or evidence universal across different AOKs.

In contrast, in various fields of knowledge, historical evidence is not a satisfactory proof. Since no

ultimate truth resides in history, experts often use various methods to generate knowledge. The

advancement of competitive historical accounts essentially results from this aspect, which then

makes the resulting knowledge questionable. Among other major epistemological weakness for

this AOK, experts remain more reliant on other sources of evidence to select and interpret evidence

presented to them (Dickie). The evidence, hence, becomes subjective in that what founds a good

evidence for one expert could be considered insufficient by another expert. A specific historical

occurrence could therefore have different explanation derived from a common evidence. The

varying discernments by different experts facilitate the process of determining which evidence

should be deemed as good evidence. Despite the well of evidence that many experts could possess,

this explanation show that a valid interpretation of evidence is not guaranteed. Historians are not

limited to their AOK, especially when the evidence available cannot sufficiently explain past

events. For example, they opt for other areas of knowledge such as imagination that can

sufficiently feel the gaps. The challenges encountered by members of the history community in

evaluating the readability of evidence support he assumption that good knowledge in history

deviates from the insight that can be seen in other AOKs.

Conclusion

The exploration of both history and human science in this analysis confirms that what counts as

good evidence in one field of knowledge is consistent on other areas of knowledge too. The

findings are based in the fact that here is a similarity between the ideologies which are responsible

for guiding the process of producing knowledge which consequently make affirm that good

evidence is universal. Moreover, the interrelation between the truth and evidence guarantees that

good evidence should be able to transcend area of knowledge boundaries. After all, epistemology
 Surname 6

has a primary goal of generating truth. Regardless, the analysis also uncovered the inconsistencies

between good evidence in other area of knowledge and history and human sciences. This

assumption is founded in the fact that many experts tend to apply differing methods to produce

knowledge and determine what should be deemed as good or evidence.