Evidence

Over the last couple of weeks I have come across people who apparently seem to have ignored what evidence actually is. The first offender was a member of Friends of the Earth who uses the governmental interpretation of the word. The debate was with this green type and a farmer and it was about whether or not GM foods are a good thing or not. The governmental interpretation of evidence is that there is only evidence if it has come through research and scientific investigation. Whilst this is to an extent true, it ignores the fact that anecdotal evidence is still evidence and this green advocate was dismissing the farmer's own experiences and knowledge because they didn't fit her argument.

An academic once criticised part of one of my best presentations because some information came from personal knowledge and experience rather than from the groves of academe.

Almost the next day there was a debate about the Kelly Report into MPs expenses when it was leaked that allowances would be lost and spouses not allowed to be employed. The MP's complaint was that Kelly had clearly not listened to the evidence he had given because he had reached a different conclusion to the one he wanted, Politicians are forever doing this. The current furore over scientific advisers is also part of this. The evidence would seem to support the scientist's conclusions it is just that what he said was ludicrous but accurate.

I don't mind people using evidence to support their argument, it is what I have trained to do for 4 years, what I do object to is people denying that contrary evidence exists or stating that unless evidence is gathered from a scientific research program it is invalid. Evidence simply is. You may vary the weight you give to different types of evidence but evidence is evidence and to deny this simple fact is irritating and pointless.