While I believe that evidence is crucial to decision-making, I am sceptical about "Evidence Based Policy Making" (or "evidence-based government" or "evidence-based education", etc.). Why, despite the apparent contradiction? Because the one is not the same as the other. In the former, you look at various claims from all sides, weigh the alternatives, take into account values and circumstances, and act on the basis of a reasoned decision. In the latter, you are led blindly by "the evidence" as presented, where (as Tony Hirst suggests) "'evidence' inherits the authority associated with the most reputable source associated with it when we wish to call on it to justify it." "Evidence-based..." is often, in other words, a mechanism used to disassociate decision-making with evidence and reason, and to instead stamp authority with the imprimatur of 'evidence'. Hirst offers a good examination here, and an equally good follow-up.
Today: 2 Total: 1100 [Direct link] [Share]
