Session: M24

Are we too quick to assume that the most recent evidence is inevitably the strongest?
Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge.

Wordcount: 1536

Evidence can be defined as a piece of information upon which we base our judgment

or conclusion (TOK, 2023). Some examples of where evidence can be found are Natural and

Human sciences. It is believed that some pieces of evidence are stronger than others. This

can be due to many reasons; however, in this essay, we will look specifically at whether it is

due to the recency of evidence.

An assumption is a belief or feeling that something is true or will happen, although no

concrete proof exists (Oxford, 2023). Humans always use assumptions to help fill gaps in

our knowledge and better understand them.

The idea of an assumption being made “too quick” generally entails that the

assumption was made without adequate investigation. The subsequent effect of the

assumption could be either positive or negative.

In the context of this question, “we” can refer to many different groups of people.

However, in this essay, we will specifically focus on two groups: the general public, which

relies on pop-science journalism, and experts, who are the people in charge of determining

the strength of new evidence.

In recent years, experts are likely not too quick to assume that the most recent

evidence is the strongest. More thorough testing of evidence is needed to be correctly

incorporated into society as in the past, the negative effects of not testing have been seen.

Conversely, the general public is likely too quick to assume that the most recent evidence is

the strongest as they are overreliant on experts and scientists.

In Medicine in the 1950s, scientists were too quick to assume that the newest

evidence was inevitably the strongest. The general public was too trusting in the scientists,

leading to significant adverse side effects. This was seen in thalidomide. Thalidomide was a

medicine that was promoted as a secure sedative for pregnant women. It was given to those
in need of it, leading to its use all around the world. However, thousands of babies were born

with severe birth defects due to the unknown side effects of the medicine. This example

emphasises the significance of thoroughly testing the end product, especially in fields where

said products may substantially impact people's health and welfare. The first evidence of

Thalidomides' sedative effect was found in 1956 by a pharmacist called Chemie Grünenthal

and was first commercially prescribed in 1957 (Kim & Scialli, 2011). The first prescriptions

were given out before its side effects were thoroughly investigated. In this case, the fast

assumptions led to tragic side effects that affected an estimated 10,000 babies (Thalidomide

| Science Museum, 2019). This example shows the public's overreliance on experts of the

time and how they tended to focus on the positives of evidence rather than the negatives.

This goes beyond natural sciences and applies to all areas of knowledge where we tend to

focus on the positives of evidence rather than the negatives when, in reality, we should be

focusing on the negatives and trying to find a solution to them. Hence, in this case, scientists

and the general public were too quick to believe that the most recent evidence was the

strongest.

In the field of psychology, biases are an inclination or predisposition for or against

something (APA Dictionary of Psychology, 2018). One such bias that is believed to be a

psychological explanation as to why we may not be too quick to assume or believe that new

evidence is the strongest is confirmation bias. Confirmation bias highlights the psychological

barrier that may hinder an objective assessment of the evidence, which could result in

assumptions being made on new evidence. If the newest evidence supports the beliefs of

one, they will likely assume it is the strongest evidence; however, if it goes against their

beliefs, they are likely to disregard the evidence entirely, even though it is the newest or

strongest evidence. In clinical psychology, confirmation bias influences how therapists

assess patients. If a therapist has initial assumptions about a patient's diagnosis, they may

prioritise information that confirms their belief while overlooking evidence that contradicts it.

This bias can lead to misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment plans (Mendel et al., 2011).

Confirmation bias is an example of how and why the newest evidence isn’t always assumed
to be the strongest by experts and the general public, even though it may be. The public may

already have preexisting beliefs and may be slow to adopt the findings of newer evidence.

Confirmation bias demonstrates how our preexisting beliefs can influence how we evaluate

the evidence. This understanding is not only in psychology and applies to all areas of

knowledge, emphasising the value of critical thinking when evaluating new evidence.

Understanding how biases affect our perceptions will help us have more mature discussions

about whether the most recent evidence is always the best.

In the natural sciences, particularly in the study of evolution, the assumption that the

most recent evidence is the strongest can be challenged. The theory of evolution, put forth

by Charles Darwin in his work "On the Origin of Species," published in 1859 (Darwin, 2017),

gives an example. Darwin's theory, which proposed that species change over time due to

natural selection, drastically changed our conception of the diversity and genesis of life on

Earth. The theory of evolution has been the foundation of modern biology for more than 150

years. It is still backed by an abundance of scientific evidence from fields like genetics,

palaeontology, and comparative anatomy. This constant support of Darwin's theory

emphasises the strength and significance of basic scientific ideas, highlighting that the

quality of evidence is independent of time. Therefore, the theory of evolution challenges the

belief that newer evidence is inevitably the strongest and most significant. In this case,

scientists constantly refer back to the theory of evolution as it stands as one of the strongest

and most supported theories behind how species change over time; as the theory is more

than 150 years old, it shows that scientists aren't too quick to assume that the newest pieces

of evidence are the strongest as they already have strong fundamental evidence. However,

in 1859, when the theory of evolution was first proposed, the general public did not assume

that it was the strongest evidence; in fact, they did not believe in it due to the theory

contradicting their religious beliefs (Pew Research Center, 2020). This example highlights

that the public does not always trust the experts' judgment on the strength of evidence.

In the Human Sciences, specifically healthcare and sociology, the belief that we are

too quick to assume that the most recent evidence is the strongest is supported. This can be
seen in the spread of misinformation through social media. False information regarding

vaccinations has become widespread as information has been spread by anti-vaccine

organisations and individuals, connecting vaccines to a range of health problems, including

autism and infertility, has been posted online. These rumours persist, undermining efforts to

stop the spread of avoidable illnesses. The spread of false information about vaccines

highlights how crucial it is to communicate science truthfully and refute myths to safeguard

the public's health. This example shows how, even though evidence may not be scientifically

backed, people still assume quickly that it is correct. It is estimated that tens of millions of

anti-vaxxers worldwide (Gravelle et al., 2022), which shows that the general public may be

too quick to assume that the evidence is the strongest. This example highlights the

importance of having scientific evidence behind “evidence” that is posted online as social

media users, who are also the general public, are very quick to believe the evidence, even

when it may be false. This shows how humans generally look for evidence that fills their

gaps in knowledge, even though this evidence may be incorrect. This example also shows

that it may not be about the actual strength of the evidence that determines whether we are

too quick to assume that evidence is inevitably the strongest, but rather a gap in our

knowledge.

In order to overcome issues with newer evidence and its potential risks as well as its

opportunities to expand our knowledge, we need to take a more balanced approach in which

we are open to the idea but not too quick to adopt it. This will allow the newer evidence to be

thoroughly investigated and stand the test of time. We can avoid the potential problems that

come with making quick assumptions by thoroughly investigating and carefully assessing the

available data and evidence.

Overall, the evidence points to the fact that while specialists in different fields might

be cautious about concluding that the most recent evidence is always the strongest, the

general public frequently lacks this kind of discernment. Examples such as the thalidomide

tragedy in medicine and the enduring misinformation on social media platforms suggest that

people tend to accept new information without adequate research. On the other hand,
fundamental theories in fields such as the evolution or recognition of biases in clinical

psychology highlight the importance of critically assessing the evidence over time.

Therefore, even though there may be times when hasty conclusions are made, effectively

advancing knowledge requires a balanced approach to evaluating evidence, considering

both its quality and recentness.

References

Admin. (2023). Methods and Tools - TOK. TOK.

https://tok2022.com/methods-and-tools-in-theory-of-knowledge/

Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2019). Automation and new tasks: How technology displaces

and reinstates labour. Journal of Economic Perspectives,

https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.33.2.3

Kim, J. H., & Scialli, A. R. (2011). Thalidomide: The tragedy of birth defects and the effective

treatment of disease. Toxicological Sciences, 122(1), 1–6.

https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfr088

Gravelle, T. B., Phillips, J., Reifler, J., & Scotto, T. J. (2022). Estimating the size of “anti-vax”

and vaccine hesitant populations in the US, UK, and Canada: comparative latent class

modeling of vaccine attitudes. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 18(1).

https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2021.2008214

Mendel, R., Traut‐Mattausch, E., Jonas, E., Leucht, S., Kane, J. M., Maino, K., Kissling, W.,

& Hamann, J. (2011). Confirmation bias: why psychiatrists stick to wrong preliminary

diagnoses. Psychological Medicine, 41(12), 2651–2659.

https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291711000808

Darwin, C. (2017). On the origin of species. Macmillan Collector's Library.

APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). https://dictionary.apa.org/bias

Thalidomide | Science Museum. (2019, December 11). Science Museum.

https://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/objects-and-stories/medicine/thalidomide
Pew Research Center, N. (2020, May 30). Darwin and his Theory of Evolution | Pew

Research Center. Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/02/04/darwin-and-his-theory-of-evolution/

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2023, October 12). Psychoanalysis | Definition,

Theory, & Therapy. Encyclopedia Britannica.

https://www.britannica.com/science/psychoanalysis

Casad, B. J., & Luebering, J. (2024, February 14). Confirmation bias | Definition, Examples,

Psychology, & Facts. Encyclopedia Britannica.

https://www.britannica.com/science/confirmation-bias