Data, Information, Evidence, and Knowledge - Beliefs, Understanding and more

A public health guide to Information and Misinformation to assist us in today's confusing times

The following insights are drawn from: Data, Information, Evidence, and Knowledge: A Proposal for Health Informatics and Data Science, a 2018 publication by Dr. Olaf Dammann, Professor and Vice Chair Public Health and Community Medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. (He also describes himself as a physician, epidemiologist and philosopher.) (Link)

The slides above are pulled directly or summarized from content published by Dr. Dammann. What follows below are MY OWN subsequent reflections and do NOT necessarily reflect Dr. Dammann’s thoughts.

As we hear barbs being thrown across the way, with some commentators and experts claiming that other experts and commentators are “promoting misinformation” it may help to look for the data and the contexts in which data arise, to firstly verify the information being presented.

If the one side or the other of the argument is running on beliefs that are not fully grounded in CURRENT evidence (i.e. useful contextualized information - aka useful, accurate data in context) then, and only then, could a charge of “misinformation” stick. And then it would need to be followed up by joint presentation of the data in context coming from the other side. At no point in time should the scientific process be reduced to a static, linear exercise ending with a fixed conclusion.

At all points in the discussions it is essential to display mutual willingness to follow where the data/information/evidence lead, even if beliefs need to be broken. Science-informed public health officials NEED TO BE OPEN TO NEW EVIDENCE, remain “nimble” and be prepared to drop any firmly held beliefs in order to shift how they respond.

None other than the University of Alberta Health Law Professor Timothy Caulfield, stated it this aptly: “Science-informed public health officials should revise their recommendations based on the science, that’s their responsibility. And if they don’t, that’s more problematic. I would say, changing your mind based on the science is a badge of honor, not a reason to not trust someone.”

And at the same online public forum panel discussion, none other than Dr. Teresa Tam put it this way:

There we have it, continually tracking new evidence is crucial, remaining nimble and ready to refine our approaches, to shift how we respond, is actually really important…and we should be able to adapt our response. “Not doing so will not, I think, be responsible."

Hopefully this summation of Dr. Dammann’s insights on how knowledge is defined in medical and public health settings (based on useful information, i.e. accurate data in context) and the reflection and the 2 quotes that followed will prove insightful in the ongoing battles of our current “information war.”