WHAT IS QUALITATIVE EVIDENCES? attempts to describe what is going on.

. can consist of observations, transcripts of interviews, photographs, videotapes or other kinds of information which convey the quality of what is being evaluated presentation of a reason to support a conclusion Kinds of Qualitative Evidence Intuition this type of evidence refers to gut feelings or hunches. Generally not very dependable. However, in some cases intuition is all you have to go on. For example, an airplane pilot that has a hunch about something being wrong with the plane might be a reliable source in the moment. Authorities these are appeals to others who are deemed to have more knowledge about a subject so-called experts. Remember, sometimes even the best authorities are wrong. Also, age, being in print and status do not necessarily make an authority better. Evaluating these calls for evaluating the expertise of the authority: o Why should you believe this authority? o How much expertise or training does the authority have on the subject? o Was the authority in a position to have especially good access to relevant data? o Is it reasonable to assume that the authority is free from bias? o Does the authority have a reputation for making dependable claims? Testimonials generally quoted statements by users of a product or service. Factors to consider: o Selectivity We generally only hear from those that support the claim being made. What about the experiences of others? o Personal Interest does the person making the testimonial have a vested interest in the outcome? o Omitted Information Testimonials rarely provide the complete picture Personal Experience beware of basing evaluation on your own limited experience. This leads to committing fallacies such as Hasty Generalizations. Personal Observations recognize that our observations are always filtered through our own beliefs. Need to verify evidence in other ways. Research Studies Research generally has the advantage of being verified by others in the field. It also contains precise language and measurements rather than vague concepts, which help to determine with more precision what the results indicate. Problems with research include: o Research can vary greatly in quality o Research findings often contradict one another o Research findings do not prove anything. Only provide probabilities o Research can also be filtered through the researchers bias and personal interest o Secondary sources often distort or simplify research findings o Research facts change over time (we used to believe the world was flat as a fact!) o Some research is conducted under very artificial circumstances Questions to ask about research: o What is the quality of the source of the report? o Has the study been replicated? o Is there any reason the findings might be distorted or selectively reported? o How artificial are the conditions? o How far can the findings be generalized? o What biases are present in the research methods?

Analogies these can both stimulate insights, because they simplify complex information, and they can deceive us, because they may not present the complete picture. Consider the following when evaluating analogies: o In how many ways are the two things being compared similar? The more similarities, the better. o How relevant are the similarities and differences between the two items?

Falsifiability
It must be possible to conceive of evidence that would prove the claim false. It may sound paradoxical, but in order for any claim to be true, it must be falsifiable. The rule of falsifiability is a guarantee that if the claim is false, the evidence will prove it false; and if the claim is true, the evidence will not disprove it (in which case the claim can be tentatively accepted as true until such time as evidence is brought forth that does disprove it). Example:

a. the true claim that the life span of human beings is less than 200 years is falsifiable; it would be falsified if a single human being were to live to be 200 years old. b. the true claim that water freezes at 32 F is falsifiable; it would be falsified if water were to freeze at, say, 34 F. c. "All humans live forever" - the presentation of just one dead human could prove the statement wrong\

Logic

Any argument in support of a claim must be both valid and sound.

To be valid, the arguments premises must be true. To be sound, the rules of logic must be correctly used to reach conclusions based on such premises. An invalid argument can be recognize by the simple method of counterexample All dogs have fleas. Xavier has fleas. Therefore Xavier is a dog. Invalid - Counterexample: Xavier is a cat who has fleas.

All dogs have fleas. Xavier is a dog. Therefore Xavier has fleas. Unsound - Not all dogs have fleas.

Comprehensiveness
The evidence offered in support of any claim must be exhaustive that is all of the available evidence must be considered.

Example:

the proponents of biorhythm theory are fond of pointing to airplane crashes that occurred on days when the pilot, copilot, and navigator were experiencing critically low points in their intellectual, emotional, and/or physical cycles. Contradiction: The evidence considered by the biorhythm apologists, however, does not include the even larger number of airplane crashes that occurred when the crews were experiencing high or neutral points in their biorhythm cycles (Hines 1988:160). Jeane Dixon has precognitive ability because she predicted the 1988 election of George Bush Contradiction: ignore the thousands of forecasts that Dixon has made that have failed to come true (such as her predictions that John F. Kennedy would not win the presidency in 1960, that World War III would begin in 1958, and that Fidel Castro would die in 1969).

Honesty
The evidence offered in support of any claim must be evaluated without self-deception. The rule of honesty is a corollary to the rule of comprehensiveness. When you have examined all of the evidence, it is essential that you be honest with yourself about the results of that examination. If the weight of the evidence contradicts the claim, then you are required to abandon belief in that claim.

Replicability
If the evidence for any claim is based upon an experimental result, or if the evidence offered in support of any claim could logically be explained as coincidental, then it is necessary for the evidence to be repeated in subsequent experiments or trials. The rule of replicability provides a safeguard against the possibility of error, fraud, or coincidence. The rule of replicability, which requires independent observers to follow the same procedures and to achieve the same results, is an effective way of correcting bias or error, even if the bias or error remains permanently unrecognized. If the experimental results are the product of deliberate fraud, the rule of replicability will ensure that the experiment will eventually be performed by honest researchers.

Sufficiency
The evidence offered in support of any claim must be adequate to establish the truth of that claim, 1. the burden of proof for any claim rests on the claimant,

2. extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and for the obvious reason of balance. 3. evidence based upon authority and/or testimony is always inadequate for any paranormal claim , for the simple reason that a human being can lie or make a mistake