Abstract

The ever-increasing number of scientific publications lets the half-life of evidence appear shorter and shorter. In scientific research, evidence does not enjoy 100% certainty. Considering the variety of approaches, points of view and constructions with regard to the comprehensibility and perceptibility of evidence, systematic error in scientific studies is immanent. In general, evidence should be well-supported by repeated implementation studies rather than by a single falsified hypothesis in a stand-alone study. Ideally, the estimated probability of certainty should be specified regarding the accuracy of observations, measurements and calculations, and conclusions. A division into categories of certainty may be useful, ranging from obvious (observational studies) and proven (interventional studies) to evident (meta-analyses and systematic reviews). The term evidence as currently used in scientific reporting might provoke higher expectations regarding levels of certainty than are justified. Evidence and bias have to be seen in a complementary context.

Keywords:

bias, data science, evidence based medicine, implementation science, philosophy, medical, research design, scientific experimental error

References

Coccheri S. Error, contradiction and reversal in science and medicine. Europ J Int Med. 2017; 41:28-29. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejim.2017.03.026.

Treadwell J R, Singh S, Talati R, McPheeters M L, Reston J T. A framework for best evidence approaches can improve the transparency of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidem. 2012; 65(11), 1159-1162. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.06.001.

Sarri G, Patorno E, Yuan H, et al. Framework for the synthesis of non-randomised studies and randomised controlled trials: a guidance on conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis for healthcare decision making. BMJ. 2022; 27(2), 109-119. DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111493.

Briggs A H, Weinstein M C, Fenwick E A, Karnon J, Sculpher M J, Paltiel A D ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force--6. Value Health 2012; 15(6), 835-842. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.04.014.

Lederer W. The Importance of “Nothingness” in Empirical Science – a Hypothesis. Journal of Philosophy and Ethics. 2023; 5(2):4-6. Available from: https://sryahwapublications.com/journals/journal-of-philosophy-and-ethics/volume-5/issue-2. Accessed May 24, 2024.

Wittgenstein L. Philosophical Investigations [Philosophische Untersuchungen] ed.: J. Schulte, Frankfurt am Main, Verlag Suhrkamp, 1960.

Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. Updated January 2024. Available from: https://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf. Accessed May 24, 2024.

Guyatt G H, Thorlund K, Oxman A D, et al. GRADE guidelines: 13. Preparing summary of findings tables and evidence profiles-continuous outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66(2), 173-183. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.08.001.

Bendassolli P F. Theory Building in Qualitative Research: Reconsidering the Problem of Induction. FQS 2013, 14(1).

Popper K R. The Open Society and Its Enemies: New One-Volume Edition. NED-New edition. Princeton University Press, 1994. DOI: 10.2307/j.ctt24hqxs.

Popper K R. The growth of scientific knowledge. In: Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge & K. Paul, 1963.

Gödel K. On formally undecidable theorems of the Principia Mathematica and related systems I. [Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I]. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik 1931: 38:173 198. DOI:10.1007/BF01700692

Sackett D, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. London: Churchill Livingstone, 1997.

Ferreira P H, Ferreira M L, Maher C G, Refshauge K, Herbert R D, Latimer J. Effect of applying different "levels of evidence" criteria on conclusions of Cochrane reviews of interventions for low back pain. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002; 55(11), 1126-1129. DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(02)00498-5.

Wasserstein R L, Lazar A N. The ASA Statement on p-Values: Context, Process, and Purpose. The American Statistician 2026; 70, 129-133. DOI:10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108.

Descartes R. Meditationes de prima philosophia in qua dei existenti et animae immortalitas demonstrater / Meditations on first philosophy (Meditationen über die Erste Philosophie). Ed. C. Wohlers, Felix Meiner Verlag Hamburg, 2008.

Smith G C, Pell J P. Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2003; 327(7429), 1459-1461. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459.

Higgins J P, Altman D G, Gøtzsche P C. et al. Cochrane Bias Methods Group; Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011; 343:d5928. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d5928.

Joannidis J P A. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005; 2:e124. DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 pmid:16060722

Wenski G. Supplement: In: Small reference book on cognitive error [Anhang. In: Das kleine Handbuch kognitiver Irrtümer]. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2022. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-64776-9.

How to Cite

Lederer, W. (2024). Science between evidence and illusion . The Evidence, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.61505/evidence.2024.2.3.95

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Wolfgang Lederer

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Copyright© by the author(s). Published by the Evidence Journals. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.