Approaches to Traditional Evidence

Opportunities and Challenges

A vast range of traditions have explored Emergent Phenomena for at least thousands and likely tens of thousands of years across diverse cultural contexts and with a range of epistemic frames, meaning understands of how we know what we know, as well as pragmatic and soteriological concerns, meaning what saves us from what.

This provides a vast wealth of knowledge of emergent phenomenology, practices, effects, conceptual, ontological, and taxonomic frameworks, and other forms of knowledge. This is obviously imbedded to various degrees in a range of cultural contexts, some the context in which the tradition arose, and others in new contexts into which the traditional forms of knowledge have been imported, incorporated, modified, hybridized, adapted, and otherwise changed from their original forms in an ongoing, evolutionary process.

These systems of knowledge provide profound opportunities for the global clinical mainstream to better understand not only the specific beliefs, cultures, and practices found in various specific individuals and communities, but also potentially universally applicable modalities that may improve outcomes across a range of fronts related not only to wellness and healing, but also to more fundamental improvements in the human condition and the potential benefits of those for broader societies, regions, and ecosystems.

However, in contemporary global mainstream clinical, scientific, public health, legal, etc. contexts, there is an understandable concern with the hierarchy of evidence quality, typically ranging from the low end of expert opinion and culminating in the summit of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.

Here is a response from Claude 3.5 Sonnet about this particular question of evidence quality of traditional systems (see Approaches to AI/LLM Evidence) generated 19 September 2024.

Evidence Quality Classification for Traditional and Modern Practices

Current Challenges

1. Temporal Disparity: Traditional practices have millennia of accumulated experience, while modern scientific methods are relatively recent.
2. Epistemological Differences: Traditional knowledge systems often have different ways of knowing and validating information compared to modern scientific approaches.
3. Cultural Context: Practices and their effects may be deeply embedded in specific cultural contexts, making generalization difficult.
4. Colonial Influences: The interpretation and documentation of traditional practices have been influenced by colonial perspectives, potentially distorting their representation.
5. Evolving Epistemic Frames: The understanding and documentation of practices have changed over time, influenced by various philosophical and scientific paradigms.

Existing Evidence Classification Systems

Most existing evidence classification systems are designed for modern scientific research and may not adequately address the unique aspects of traditional practices. However, some systems have attempted to incorporate broader types of evidence:

1. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation):
   • Primarily used in healthcare
   • Considers observational studies and expert opinion, but still prioritizes randomized controlled trials
2. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence:
   • Includes expert opinion and mechanism-based reasoning
   • Still heavily weighted towards modern research methodologies
3. USPSTF (U.S. Preventive Services Task Force) Grade Definitions:
   • Considers the overall evidence, including consistency across studies
   • Limited in addressing very long-term, culturally-specific practices

Proposed Approaches for Integrating Traditional and Modern Evidence

1. Mixed Methods Evidence Hierarchy:
   • Incorporate qualitative research methods alongside quantitative ones
   • Give weight to long-term observational data and case studies
2. Cultural Validity Framework:
   • Assess evidence based on its relevance and validity within specific cultural contexts
   • Consider the longevity and consistency of practices across generations
3. Phenomenological Evidence Scale:
   • Develop a scale that gives weight to consistent reported experiences across diverse populations and time periods
   • Include measures for the depth and quality of phenomenological descriptions
4. Historical Consistency Index:
   • Create a metric that assesses the consistency of reported effects and practices over extended periods
   • Factor in the evolution of documentation methods and epistemic frames
5. Cross-Cultural Corroboration System:
   • Evaluate practices based on their presence and reported effects across multiple, independent cultural traditions
   • Consider the degree of isolation between cultures as a factor in corroboration strength
6. Integrative Evidence Synthesis:
   • Develop a framework that combines traditional knowledge, modern scientific findings, and phenomenological reports
   • Use a multi-dimensional approach that doesn't inherently prioritize one type of evidence over others
7. Epistemic Diversity Scale:
   • Create a scale that gives higher weight to findings that have been validated across multiple epistemic frameworks (e.g., traditional, scientific, phenomenological)
   • Consider the independence and diversity of these frameworks in the weighting

Recommendations for EmergeWiki

1. Develop a Custom Classification System: Create a unique evidence classification system that integrates elements from existing systems with new categories that respect traditional knowledge.
2. Transparent Documentation: Clearly explain the rationale behind the classification system and its limitations.
3. Multiple Perspectives: For each topic, present evidence ratings from both traditional and modern scientific perspectives.
4. Evolving System: Implement a system that can evolve based on user feedback and new developments in epistemology and cross-cultural research.
5. Collaborative Approach: Engage with scholars from various disciplines (anthropology, philosophy of science, religious studies, etc.) to refine the classification system.
6. Case Studies: Use detailed case studies to illustrate how different types of evidence are weighed and integrated.
7. Acknowledge Limitations: Clearly state the limitations of any classification system, especially when dealing with subjective experiences and culturally-specific practices.

By implementing a nuanced, multi-faceted approach to evidence classification, EmergeWiki can set a new standard for integrating diverse knowledge systems while maintaining scientific rigor and respecting traditional wisdom.