Evidence handbook –category evidence
Q: why are images 1 and 2 more effiecient than image 3 at telling people about climate change and the future?
A: By using visualisations and presenting information in a pictorial fashion allows the lay person to understand information much easier without the need for words which may contain/involve jargon from professions/fields of study they may not be familiar with.
The skill of Graphic Designers to present the messages they try to convey is important because it makes them responsible that produces positive outcomes for the audience.
Image 1 and 2 for example are visualisations that connote the idea of climate change but unlike image 3 of the polar bear which signifies a negative connotation, suggesting that the ice will soon melt and it will be forced to swim and eventually die from exhaustion if it does not find a solid foundation soon. 1 and 2 communicate that yes, climate change is affecting the planet but it is designed in such a way to show audiences of more positive solutions which can be achieved and aware.
“There are three kinds of lies; lies, damn lies and statistics.”
-Mark Twain (quoting Benjamin Disraeli)
Q: What do you think this means? Why should we be aware of this?
I think this quote means that the use of statistics to present something as fact is dangerous. Researchers and experts in fields of study that publish statistics could easily have bad intentions and easily use statistics as a tool for lying.
We should be aware of statistics because it is data conducted by experts and our interpretations of the data can be very misleading depending of the presentation. Data can be displayed in bad ways in order to skew the truth.
Q: Where might visualisations be used as evidence? How should they be presented?
A: I think visualisations could be used as evidence if they are from independent sources who do not wish to seek gains with ill intentions. They need to be presented in a non-biased manner in order to not affect the audience’s emotions and instead be factual.
Q: Are maps evidence? What are they evidence of? When can you trust a map? Or not?
A: I believe the way maps are presented effect their status as evidence. For example, a map created for factual purposes can be trusted whereas a map created for art is not in my opinion. This is because the purpose for maps in my mind is to display the discoveries made by humans for navigational purposes, they are evidence of locations made with scientific specifications and in my opinion are objective. Whereas a map for art usually conveys a meaning that can be positive or negative and therefor can affect audience’s emotions which influences their reactions.
Q: What do we mean by the word evidence? How can we “know” that evidence is valid? Apart from the pieces of evidence themselves, what else do we need to make us feel confident in believing the truthfulness of them?
A: Evidence is something that shows that something is true/proven. I suppose there is a level where we cannot 100% without a doubt know that something is true or not unless something is studied extensively and every meticulous detail is accounted for and recreated accurately.
I think we as people need to experience the evidence for ourselves wholly, not just by being exposed to it visually and by having accurate knowledge of an experience as well.
Q: Think about these different scenarios? What would you count as evidence (something that shows something is “True”)? Who decides in these scenarios what counts and how are they different from each other? Precisely what does the evidence show?
- A murder case being tried in court – no conflicting witness testimonies, CCTV footage, DNA samples. Experts in law, security, detectives, and the jury decide whether the evidence given is true.
- Same murder case being discussed in the tabloid newspapers – The interpretation of the case would probably be decided by the editor because there are other motives behind this form of media to sell papers to make a profit. The evidence used would probably be photographs and eye witness accounts from first/second hard sources so the reliability is varied.
- A factory is polluting a river through its waste outlet – Statistics, Images, negative impacts on the environment and community. Local authorities?
- You have measles – Symptoms, information readily available online and passed events with similar occurrences. Doctors, nurses, GPs.
- An Ordinance survey map of your home area – Data, visual evidence. Cartographers.
- A map of disputed borders – historic evidence, geologists, official documents.
- A fox got in your hen house and ate some chickens – number of chickens, noises from chickens, feathers from dead chickens which may have been stolen, history of foxes in your area. You, CCTV, neighbours, chickens.
- An archaeological artefact from Pompei – artefacts, images, documents of the find. Archaeologists, historians, geologists.
- A fossil of the first bird – Images, videos, plastic mould casts. Archaeologists, Zoologists.
- Your partner proves their love for you – actions, words. Your partner.
- Political party discusses the record of the opposite party
- Climate change is man-made – statistics, visual change in the environment, readings from experts – Scientists, Activists, Experts.
Q: When you consider evidence as indexical signs how does it change anything you explored on the previous page about what counts as evidence and to whom? Does it make any difference? What if the indexes from the field were to be used in court to claim land rights or suggest that an attack had taken place there? How would thinking of things through a semiotic lens make a difference? Or not?
A: using our knowledge of the world and taking indexical signs into account we can deduce many things using our common sense. Smoke is an index of fire for example, there cannot be smoke without fire. If there is tangible indexical signs then there is more or less evidence. Depending on the subject at hand, you are able to use selective evidence in order to support any case one may make. I do not think it really makes a difference for this reason as I think people already think this way already.
Q: What, if any, of these connotations could help you believe something about the egg shell in the field is “true”? If it is true for you, is it actually “true”?
A: I think that something being true to oneself is different from other “truths” in the sense that if someone has a vivid, emotional or sensory attachment from an event then it could be considered “true” to them. The associations from indexes are often based on knowledge previously gained. For example, you would probably not associate an eggshell with predators if you had no experience or knowledge of them. Or If you were familiar with the symbolic connotations egg shells have with spring, one’s idea of truth is not necessarily wrong but it can be different.
Q: What if we looked at the bird’s broken egg shell through the lens of Phenomenology and what it made us feel like? What would be its texture? Is it clean or dirty? How light or heavy is it? Did you find it in a warm dry field or on a wet, windy beach?
A: I think Phenomenology heavily links to emotions. Again, if it triggers something within someone its “truth” could be considered real or “true”. I think it all boils down to personal experience. I think events and indexes which are personally felt by an individual can be regarded as true to oneself for they have experienced it first hand and by using knowledge gained at the time of the experience they can deduce how they feel.
Q: What impact would emotions and other senses be having on the jury here?
What about the lens of politics and propaganda? Or advertising?
A: I think the applications of emotions and other senses my affect the jury. It is normal for people to feel emotions when faced with a case they are able to sympathise with and so this could lead to the defendants or prosecutors to tailor their case in order to target emotions and senses of the jury by either heavily describing the scene or presenting visual evidence in order to emphasise their points.
Q: How do you know that what someone says is reliable when it is in an advert for, say, an eco-friendly product, or in a party-political broadcast before an election? Is what they say ‘evidence’?
A: It is my belief that one cannot fully trust an advertisement because they all have something to gain and will present their cases in any way they see fit in order to maximise a response. This could involve visual graphics or video ‘evidence’ which could potentially be staged. What they say may be evidence to some extent but I am sure they will alter or exaggerate their ‘facts’ in order to first captive their audience and then get them to remain captivated in order to continue being exposed to their product or services.
Q: Is something propaganda when you believe it to be false or made by your enemy? Is it information when your own side or ‘tribe’ makes it? Give reasons for your answer.
A: I do not think that something is propaganda if I believe it to be false or made by my enemy. My view on propaganda is that it heavily pushes the agenda of the party who makes it based on their beliefs and ideologies. It can still be considered information but whether it is true or false information is another argument. My own side or tribe that present information do not have the obligation to publish evidence that are 100% factual rather, the purpose of propaganda is to convince audiences to sympathise with our agendas by using whatever means necessary and this can more often than not, involve lying or obscuring the truth or presenting statistics in such a way that it favours one’s cause.
Q: Can we discount gut feelings? What do we feel about shock advertising? Or should we be rational and look at things more sensibly? How is this done?
A: I think it would be foolish to discount gut feelings. I think that gut feelings are a sensation for a reason. A pseudo sixth sense within the mind that stems from our inner instincts so that we may consider whether something is our idea of right or wrong which is ingrained in our very being.
In my opinion, shock advertising is very ‘edgy’ in that I personally think that it tries too hard to shock its audience. This may be the case for me because I have been exposed to these notions throughout my course but to the average consumer or audience they might be easily triggered by shock advertising. It places audiences outside their comfort zone and forces them to be exposed to things that they normally wouldn’t be exposed to in their ‘bubbles’ of reality which makes them likely to consider the messages of shock advertising because they have not encountered such things before or not as often.
Rational thinking in this sense is not easily achieved to the uneducated or the ignorant. For instance, audiences would need to be made aware and knowledgeable of a subject before they can think rationally. People often fear what they do not understand and so repeated exposure to a subject may lead to them being more educated and they can use the knowledge they gain to come to their own conclusions.
Q: When someone expresses something that they feel is true through the media of visual art or literature and poetry, song or performance – is this ‘evidence’?
A: I believe this is evidence because the artist or creator has been exposed to the subject and has evidentially done research on it in order to create their own interpretation of it in a creative medium. It may not be considered ‘hard’ evidence but I think that for someone who must want to outwardly express their thoughts and ideas some aspect of it must be ‘real’ in a sense.
Q: What does this mean: “someone expresses something they feel is true”?
A: I think it means that if someone expresses outwardly something they feel is true outwardly then it makes it ‘real’ and exist within the world as they have created something through their own vices. I think believe must be involved for something to be made real in this sense.
Q: Why do we study Shakespeare, or the speeches of Martin Luther King, or Bob Dylan’s Blowing in the Wind, or Picasso’s war image, Guernica, as historical or cultural evidence?
A: All forms of art and culture we make is an expression. I think we study creations from these people listed above and many other in order to understand what led them to express themselves by studying their time period, their personal lives which would lead them to produce their creations. It is so we understand the processes and circumstances that led them to express the world around them and in doing so we may understand how to express ourselves.
Q: In what ways do you think poems, prose, songs or music could be described as “visualising” something, or at least making us have a greater understanding of something through our senses and emotions, not just through our ‘factual’ knowledge (cognition).
A: These creative vices can be considered visualising something because even though different people can be exposed to these creative outlets, not everyone will experience it the same way. They may have different images in their heads and interoperate these creations uniquely based on their experiences and the way they understand the world.
Q: Do you find the presentation convincing? (Do you believe what they say is true?) Why? Who decides what we see and how we see it?
A: I find some presentations in museums convincing because they are displayed “factually”. The subjects are not decorated much, they seem to remain preserved the way they were found or created.
Q: Do you find the presentation in these museums interesting? Why?
A: I don’t really know. I like the way they are presented because they are very straightforward and the information seems factual. But art galleries such as the ones from Somerset house present works of art which are very non-traditional and leads me to believe that their presentation also has something to do with the signs and signifiers and more often than not they do which is why I like how art is evolving so much. I never used to understand or appreciate art that was not displayed on a canvas but I do now because I learned that every aspect of a creation has meaning behind it.
Q: What is the difference between being convincing and being interesting? Which is more truthful or real?
A: I think there is not much difference between being convincing and Interesting. The results of both speak for themselves. Convincing audiences can lead to them taking actions which can potentially impact and change the environment around them. Whereas being interesting can also lead to action by audiences if their interest is piqued. It can be argued that being interesting is more truthful and real because it should be stating the facts of a subject which is not always the case. I feel that being convincing uses any means (sometimes underhanded) to convince the audience to sympathise with a point of view. Both have the potential to be made real.
Q: Is the presentation “didactic” (guiding you what to think)? In what ways can we engage with the displays and make our own “truths” about the evidence?
A: I think the presentation is didactic in a sense as it requires the audience to visualise what uses the displays were to the people who made them or choose to think what their purposes were. We could research the displays ourselves and actively look for sources and reports relating to them as well as understand the context of their creation. This would make it our truth and though may not be completely 100% accurate, it makes it ‘real’ in a sense.
Q: Reflect on how the work in this PDF has helped your understanding of the usefulness of visualisation.
A: Visualisation has many forms and uses. Whether to send a message or convince its audience, The beauty of visualisation is that it is unique to each individual an no interpretation is the same which reflects on humanity itself. We are all unique and all have the potential to create based on our experiences and sense.
Q: Reflect on how the work in this PDF has helped your understanding of what evidence might consist of, how to present it and what makes it valid and why.
A: Evidence can consist of many ‘real’ things such as visual or physical evidence. It could also be presented second hard through the experiences of others such as creators who express themselves through the use of are and design. It is up to the audience to choose whether to believe in the evidence they are presented using their own experiences and sense in order to make conclusions.
