It is important for now to note that the use of root cause analysis is not merely “a business tool.” Rather it is a method for investigating historical conditions and events related to why virtually any undesired event happened. Speculation may be avoided but is not always completely preventable, and this method does address the inclusion of speculation in the course of an investigation. When speculation enters the investigation, the conclusions become more tentative. Because this research seeks to investigate historical events, ranges of plausibility are to be preferred in assessing offered root causes and interpretation of data rather than mathematical probabilities.
Equally important is that root cause analysis is designed to determine why a deviation or failure occurred and cannot be used as a tool to affirm why something happened correctly—a positive outcome—according to the established expectation. As such the role of root cause analysis in this research will be to aid in demonstrating not only objectivity with respect to the research, but also to assist in building a cogent argument that increases the plausibility of any offered conclusions.
Rationale
This work will employ both inductive and abductive approaches of argumentation, building from specific points of evidence to the best possible inferred conclusion. David Hume expressed concern over the use of the inductive method, and that concern must be addressed if the approach and conclusions are to be considered valid. The two issues associated with the Humean problem of induction in particular are with the concept of generalizing about the properties of a group of objects and presupposing that future events will happen as in the past. This work focuses on establishing a SPAC based on one specific individual rather than a collective and second, because of the definition used in determining what will constitute “evidence,” future events are not admissible for consideration. As a result, the problem of induction is avoided by focusing the research on the evidence.
Evidence is necessary for establishing matters of truth. In American jurisprudence, evidence broadly speaking is understood as testimony, physical objects, and documents materially relevant to the case at hand that are capable of demonstrating a fact without inference or presumption.12 The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines evidence as information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true, while Webster’s considers evidence to be an outward sign or indicator of something that furnishes proof. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy moves a step further by stating that evidence is that which increases or decreases the probability of a proposition.
Frederick Ferré notes the following regarding the nature of evidence:
Suffice it to say that while the general function of evidence is to count for or against the reasonableness of giving some degree of assent to a possible belief, its specific nature is field-dependent and thus relative to the logical character of the sort of beliefs at issue. Evidence is either logically relevant, that is, or it is not evidence (within that field of thought) at all. In practice, furthermore, what makes some datum or other evidence is not some absolute characteristic inherent in it, but, rather, the considered judgment of those who work and think in the field that it needs to be taken into account in the weighing of their beliefs. Thus evidence becomes evidence, I submit, by a kind of ruling made—often not without debate and never incorrigibly—by those most intimately concerned. Evidence is provisionally granted its evidential status by being acknowledged as properly pertinent to the resolution of the issue at hand; it is ruled in order by those seized of a question; it is admitted into court, as it were, by those most interested in reaching a fair verdict.13
Thomas Kelly notes the following:
Reflection on examples such as these naturally suggest that evidence consists paradigmatically of physical objects, or perhaps, physical objects arranged in certain ways. For presumably, physical objects are the sort of thing which one might place in a plastic bag, dig up from the ground, send to a laboratory, or discover among the belongings of an individual of historical interest. . . . Empiricists in the vein of Russel think of evidence as sense data. . . . Quine held that evidence consisted of the stimulation of one’s sensory receptors. . . . Evidence is that which makes a difference to what one is justified in believing or what is reasonable to believe. . . . Thus, the skeptic about our knowledge of the external world maintains that one’s evidence does not favor one’s ordinary, commonsense views about one’s surroundings over the various skeptical alternatives. . . . Insofar as one is rational, one is disposed to respond appropriately to one’s evidence: at any given time, one’s views accurately reflect the character of one’s evidence at that time, and one’s views manifest a characteristic sensitivity or responsiveness to change in one’s evidence through time.14
The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy frames evidence as follows:
Evidence is information bearing on the truth or falsity of a proposition. . . . One has knowledge only when one has a true belief based on very strong evidence. . . . Conclusive evidence is so strong as to rule out all possibility of error. The discussions of skepticism show clearly that we lack conclusive evidence for our beliefs about the external world, about the past, about other minds, and about nearly any other topic. Thus, a person’s perceptual experiences provide only inconclusive evidence for beliefs about the external world since such experiences can be deceptive or hallucinatory. Inconclusive, or prima facie, evidence can always be defeated or overridden by subsequently acquired evidence, as, e.g., when testimonial evidence in favor of a proposition is overridden by the evidence provided by subsequent experiences.15
From an empiricist viewpoint evidence is presented as being objective in nature and known through one or more of the five senses. The skeptic’s position of our knowledge not favoring one’s ordinary and commonsense views about our surroundings over various alternatives fails to convince. If, as suggested by the skeptic, there is no reason to favor the commonsense views, then one is at a loss for explaining why such a person when driving a vehicle stops when the traffic light turns red or chooses to use an umbrella when it rains.
Evidence will be defined in this work as a condition or event, objective in nature, knowable by those present, open to investigation by all others, whereby when rightly interpreted, corresponds to reality. Using this definition, evidence may be either a noun or a verb, is not limited to a single person, is not subjective, and requires interpretation for correct understanding.16 One cannot avoid the reality that there are what would be known as evidences for events that have happened in history or conditions which exist. This arguably is the very basis upon which forensic science was established.17 As such the definition used here is a softer form of evidentialism, allowing for the existence of paradoxes and belief in other areas of life where such belief does not meet the established standard for inclusion in this research.
Of importance here is not to claim future events as being evidential. John Hick proposed that eschatology could be used as part of an evidential argument.
The appeal to evidence as a means of verifying the truth of Christianity has been made to the past (history) as well as to present experience either internally (as in mysticism) or externally (in nature). But some have also appealed to the future as a source of evidence for the possible truth of Christianity. Such was the suggestion of John Hick in his eschatological verification.18
In denying the use of what may be in the future and appealing only to that which exists now or in the past, an evidential method avoids challenges that the structure is logically fallacious by way of introducing statements that may be interpreted as appealing to a hypothesis contrary to fact.
A significant benefit to the use of an evidential method is that it has the ability to become a positive apologetic that focuses on individual points building from the data to the conclusion. A pitfall that may be avoided by the use of evidential methods is that it may prevent movement toward polemical arguments and instead focuses on the data and subsequent conclusion.