What Is Empirical Evidence?
Definition: Empirical evidence refers to information that is obtained through experience. The process of obtaining empirical evidence begins with a hypothesis, which entails assumptions and predictions. This hypothesis is then tested through observation and documentation of the subsequent patterns and behavior. At the end, one will be able to reject or fail to reject the hypothesis.
In other words, empirical evidence is a product of scientific experimentation. Scientific experimentation is the process of coming up with a hypothesis and then testing it. As such, this makes empirical evidence a form of scientific evidence. All scientific methods must adhere to the condition that the obtained evidence is capable of being observed through human senses. Additionally, empirical evidence must be capable of being verified.
Types of Empirical Evidence
Empirical evidence is either qualitative or quantitative. Whether the evidence is the former or the latter, this depends on the nature of the data that makes up the evidence.
Qualitative evidence
Qualitative evidence is oftentimes the result of qualitative research. Particularly, qualitative evidence contains information that is non-measurable. The non-measurable nature of the information derives from the fact that qualitative research is oftentimes concerned with changes in human behavior. This kind of evidence comes from experiments in the social sciences. For example, the data that you collect at the end of a market research is mostly qualitative.
Usually, qualitative evidence is broader, deeper and richer. This is because the evidence is obtained from a few case examples that are representative of the whole population. As such, the evidence is most useful in situations where you need to describe why and how.
Unfortunately, qualitative evidence is a product of few case examples that are oftentimes incapable of representing the whole population. Further, qualitative evidence is subjective in nature. As such, the evidence is more susceptible to bias and that might compromise the integrity of the data collected.
Quantitative evidence
Quantitative evidence, on the other hand, comprises numerical data. This data can be evaluated using statistical methods. As such, one can use statistical calculations to verify the validity of quantitative evidence. The information contained in quantitative evidence is measurable. Notably, analysis of quantitative evidence provides the best means to measure trends. Usually, this kind of information comes from surveillance, surveys, and administration records among other sources. Researchers use the evidence to provide answers to ‘When’, ‘What’, ‘Who’, and ‘Where’ questions.
Oftentimes, the information that makes up quantitative evidence is too broad to use. As such, there is need for smoothing out of the data. Specifically, smoothing out the data intends to weed out outstanding cases that might influence the evidence in an undesired direction. Additionally, smoothing seeks to enable researchers to compare the information to other populations. Unfortunately, smoothing out data could have unintended consequences like hiding unusual cases.
Quantitative evidence is, oftentimes, used to quantify qualitative evidence. For example, say a financial analyst is interested in understanding the investment habits of Indians, and to link the habits to the functioning of the NIFTY 500 Index. First, the analyst will need to observe and to record the behavior of the investors. This will produce qualitative empirical evidence. However, there is need to collect quantitative data like changes in the value of NIFTY 500 Index over the period of the study. The empirical quantitative evidence will facilitate the understanding of the qualitative evidence collected earlier.
Empirical Evidence vs. Rational Evidence
The opposite of empirical evidence is rational evidence. While empirical evidence comes from observations and other empirical processes, rational evidence is a result of reasoning. The two concepts lie at the core of the tension between empiricism and rationalism.
In philosophy, there is a long running debate on the source of knowledge. Empiricists on the one hand argue that sense experience is the source of all the knowledge about the world. Defenders like John Locke and Francis Bacon believed that formation of ideas is only possible with the help of empirical evidence. On the contrary, rationalists argue that ideas are innate and that knowledge is obtained without the influence of sense experience. Key defenders of rationalism include Baruch Spinoza, Rene Descartes, and Gottfried Leibniz.