Do we need a ’science of evidence’?

Evidence is key to many topical debates such as global warming, evolution, the search for weapons of mass destruction, DNA profiling, and advances in science and medicine. A new book asks whether, considering the importance of evidence for so many disciplines, a general 'science of evidence' is possible - or even desirable. Evidence, Inference and Enquiry , edited by Philip Dawid, William Twining and Mimi Vasilaki, and published by Oxford University Press for the British Academy, is based on a five year cross-disciplinary research programme at UCL (University College London) where leading scholars in archaeology, computer science, economics, education, health, history, law, psychology, philosophy and statistics examined the variety of ways in which evidence is conceived, used and manipulated. Philip Dawid, honorary professor of statistics at UCL said: "While some disciplines have developed sophisticated methodologies for handling the type of evidence they see, there is rarely any consideration of general approaches to evidence. Unintelligent use of intelligence is widespread and damaging." While some disciplines have developed sophisticated methodologies for handling the type of evidence they see, there is rarely any consideration of general approaches to evidence. Unintelligent use of intelligence is widespread and damaging Professor Philip Dawid A common theme in the book is the relationship between the legal understanding of evidence and uses of evidence in a non-legal setting.