Your definition of 'strong' evidence feels powerful, at least in the policy realm. I have a quibble though. I would define what you describe as a strong policy model rather than strong policy evidence. Evidence, for me anyway, cannot make a temporal leap from past to future without changing into something else. It is why in the piece you mentioned (thanks by the way) I ultimately shifted from evidence to understanding.
I also loved the architecture analogy. I think it works well. But I might stick with the recipe, partly mainly the laws of physics are less obviously defining of the outcome!
Logically, I could agree with calling it a policy model. Practically, I don't think it will land with the right impact. For one, a 'model' in policy world too often just means a spreadsheet with numbers. So the word takes people away from the why, or understanding needed.
The other aspect is that I think often we only have a collection of policy models that don't exactly fit together. Evidence captures the plurality more naturally than talking about a policy model.
Not that I think evidence is quite right either. But haven't landed on the best word to use, especially as we want practitioners to get it fairly intuitively.
Hmm. When a philosopher suggests you are being impractical, you know the game is lost!
I agree with you on the practicality of using the word model. I also agree that there are many competing models (I actually see this as a good thing). Perhaps the medical distinction between diagnosis and prognosis offer a path?
Loved this.
Your definition of 'strong' evidence feels powerful, at least in the policy realm. I have a quibble though. I would define what you describe as a strong policy model rather than strong policy evidence. Evidence, for me anyway, cannot make a temporal leap from past to future without changing into something else. It is why in the piece you mentioned (thanks by the way) I ultimately shifted from evidence to understanding.
I also loved the architecture analogy. I think it works well. But I might stick with the recipe, partly mainly the laws of physics are less obviously defining of the outcome!
Lots to talk about next time we see each other.
Logically, I could agree with calling it a policy model. Practically, I don't think it will land with the right impact. For one, a 'model' in policy world too often just means a spreadsheet with numbers. So the word takes people away from the why, or understanding needed.
The other aspect is that I think often we only have a collection of policy models that don't exactly fit together. Evidence captures the plurality more naturally than talking about a policy model.
Not that I think evidence is quite right either. But haven't landed on the best word to use, especially as we want practitioners to get it fairly intuitively.
Hmm. When a philosopher suggests you are being impractical, you know the game is lost!
I agree with you on the practicality of using the word model. I also agree that there are many competing models (I actually see this as a good thing). Perhaps the medical distinction between diagnosis and prognosis offer a path?