The Rules of the Game

[Jack D Ripper]

One point I don't hear about much: lab reports are "histories". So to the extent that science has been elevated over history as a path to knowledge (for example forensic evidence is seen as more trustworthy than eye witness testimony in court) this may ignore the fact that written reports about experiments ARE histories.

In what sense does preferring forensic evidence to eye witness testimony constitute elevating science over history?

As far as I can see, preferring forensic evidence to eye witness testimony simply amounts to preferring information about the past recorded outside brains to information about the past recorded inside brains. I presume that preference would be based on an assessment of the reliability, or otherwise, of brains as recording devices. I don't really see how that relates to relative elevations of science and history.

Human testimony is well-known to be unreliable. Not only is it extremely common for people to lie (i.e., to willfully state what they believe to be false), but it is also common for people to be mistaken (sometimes due to believing a liar, sometimes for some other reason). There has been a lot of research in psychology for why people get things wrong, and also about them lying. Anyone interested can do some online searching for this. The bottom line is, human testimony is not very good evidence in many instances.

This reminds me of a case some years ago; a man was convicted of rape, with the victim identifying him. He said he did not do it, but he was convicted and sent to prison. Years later, DNA evidence became a reality, and they tested the sample they had, and found out the man was innocent. The real rapist was already in prision for something else. The interesting thing is, the man who was falsely accused looked remarkably similar to the guy who actually did it. So the victim was not lying about what she saw, but she was mistaken because of the great similarity between the two men.

[Ecurb]

Many ancient Greeks wrote as if they believed the story was true. Believing in the ancient Greek religion would help make the story seem more believable than not believing in the ancient Greek religion.

Just like many Christians have often taken the Bible stories to be history, whereas not being a Christian tends to make one more likely to be skeptical of the virgin birth, turning water into wine, etc.

Religious texts typically seem ridiculous to those who do not believe in the religion in question. That is, ridiculous if someone takes them as true instead of as fiction.

I think we should be careful about calling religious texts "fiction". Fiction is a genre comprising INTENTIONALLY invented stories. Religious texts are often oral histories that involve supernatural events and motifs. Not everything that isn't true is "fictional", and if ancient Greeks (like Homer) believed that the Iliad was a true history, you would be calling him a liar if you said they were "fiction".

By the way, the EVIDENCE for the battles before Troy and that for the interventions of the Gods is identical (or was before Troy's ruins were discovered). The evidence is the Iliad, a purported historical text. Of course we moderns can accept some parts of it, but not others, because we think that the Greek Gods didn't exist. Same with the Bible: we might accept the Sermon on the Mount, but not the raising of Lazarus. Nonetheless, the evidence for both is identical: the accounts in the Gospels. We just require MORE evidence before we believe supernatural claims than we do before accepting more mundane ones (reasonably so, by the way). One question would be: if an historical text relates supernatural events, should we discount the more naturalistic parts of it simply because we think that the entire text isn't reliable? I don't know the answer. Certainly religious texts constitute "historical evidence". But just as the jury can believe some testimony in a trial, and disbelieve other testimony, we can do the same with historical evidence. What we shouldn't do is say that these texts don't constitute evidence. A judge might exclude some testimony as irrelevant and immaterial, but allow witnesses to testify to "evidence" about which they jury must decide.

[Ecurb]

This reminds me of a case some years ago; a man was convicted of rape, with the victim identifying him. He said he did not do it, but he was convicted and sent to prison. Years later, DNA evidence became a reality, and they tested the sample they had, and found out the man was innocent. The real rapist was already in prision for something else. The interesting thing is, the man who was falsely accused looked remarkably similar to the guy who actually did it. So the victim was not lying about what she saw, but she was mistaken because of the great similarity between the two men.

This account is not credible. There is no way DNA evidence could find the accused "innocent" (although it could cast reasonable doubt upon his conviction). I hear this all the time: A man was "exonerated" by DNA evidence. How could he be? There are any number of reasons that the DNA tested did not match the accused.

Of course if a stranger had committed the rape, it's possible (even likely) that the victim made a mistaken identification. Suppose, however, that the victim knew the rapist, and was sure of the identification. Are you suggesting that because semen DNA didn't match the accused the victim should refuse to believe her own eyes and experience?

[Jack D Ripper]

The word "fiction" is more ambiguous than you are claiming:

fiction

NOUN

1 mass noun Literature in the form of prose, especially novels, that describes imaginary events and people.

2 Something that is invented or untrue.

2.1 A belief or statement which is false, but is often held to be true because it is expedient to do so.

https://www.lexico.com/definition/fiction


Either Lazarus really rose from the dead or the BIble is fiction. If Lazarus did not really rise from the dead, then the story is untrue. It does not matter if it is unintentionally untrue; see above. You may not like my use of the term, but it is following standard use.

I might as well add, fiction can include real places and real people. Napoleon is mentioned in a Jane Austen novel, as well as the city of Bath and the country of England. Having bits of truth in a work of fiction does not mean it is not a fictional story. Most works of fiction include some bits of truth.

[Jack D Ripper]

This reminds me of a case some years ago; a man was convicted of rape, with the victim identifying him. He said he did not do it, but he was convicted and sent to prison. Years later, DNA evidence became a reality, and they tested the sample they had, and found out the man was innocent. The real rapist was already in prision for something else. The interesting thing is, the man who was falsely accused looked remarkably similar to the guy who actually did it. So the victim was not lying about what she saw, but she was mistaken because of the great similarity between the two men.

This account is not credible. There is no way DNA evidence could find the accused "innocent" (although it could cast reasonable doubt upon his conviction). I hear this all the time: A man was "exonerated" by DNA evidence. How could he be? There are any number of reasons that the DNA tested did not match the accused.

Of course if a stranger had committed the rape, it's possible (even likely) that the victim made a mistaken identification. Suppose, however, that the victim knew the rapist, and was sure of the identification. Are you suggesting that because semen DNA didn't match the accused the victim should refuse to believe her own eyes and experience?

The DNA of the sample matched a different man than the one convicted. Are you suggesting that that does not show that that other person committed the rape? Do you think that man's DNA was magically transported into the victim? And that magically the convicted man's DNA was not present?

In this case, the victim did not know the rapist. The rapist and the man convicted had a remarkably similar appearance, making it easy to confuse them with each other, particularly when one is only aware of the existence of one of them.

[Ecurb]

I'm aware of the various definitions of "fiction", but on a philosophy board where we are discussing "history" vs. "science" it's reasonable to try to be careful and clear, and I am going with definition #1. In many pre-literate societies there are a variety of literary forms. There might be a word we would translate as "riddles", there might be a category translated as "folk tales", or one translated as "poetry"; and in most of these languages there would be a word that translates as either "myth" or "history". It would be the same word. The native speakers would not differentiate between myth and history (although we might). So WE might call a story "fiction" (using definition 3), but they would call it "history".

As a big Jane Austen fan, I dispute Napoleon's presence in her six masterpieces. I can't remember the Emperor ever showing up (and some criticize Austen for his absence). Captain Wentworth did make lots of money on the Laconia, presumably capturing French prizes. Nonetheless, I get your point, and Napoleon is a speaking character in "War and Peace".

[Ecurb]

The DNA of the sample matched a different man than the one convicted. Are you suggesting that that does not show that that other person committed the rape? Do you think that man's DNA was magically transported into the victim? And that magically the convicted man's DNA was not present?

In this case, the victim did not know the rapist. The rapist and the man convicted had a remarkably similar appearance, making it easy to confuse them with each other, particularly when one is only aware of the existence of one of them.

It certainly SUGGESTS that the other man committed the crime, but it doesn't "prove" it. Assuming that the rapist was a stranger, I'll grant that the evidence in this case seems overwhelming, but my point is that DNA evidence is DNA evidence. Inferences drawn from it (like, the man who matches the DNA is the rapist) are never "proven" by the evidence. There are always alternative explanations.

[Ecurb]

Either Lazarus really rose from the dead or the BIble is fiction. If Lazarus did not really rise from the dead, then the story is untrue. It does not matter if it is unintentionally untrue; see above. You may not like my use of the term, but it is following standard use.

The inferences you seem to be drawing are unwarranted. The Bible is dozens of different books. Some are not "fiction", but "poetry". Some are not "fiction" but "theology" (the letters of Paul), some are clearly fables (Jonah), others are clearly attempts at straight history (Kings).

IN courtroom dramas, the attorney is constantly casting doubt on testimony, "So, Mr. Big, you admit to being convicted of perjury in the past. Why should we believe you now?"

Mr. Big always says, "Well, this time I AM telling the truth."

That's a reasonable tactic in court, and its reasonable to think, "If Lazarus didn't rise from the dead, why should I believe any of this stuff?" However, perhaps the witness in court, this time, is really telling the truth. And perhaps some of the historical accounts in the Bible are accurate (I think some of them HAVE been confirmed by other sources, but I'm no expert, and I don't much care).

[Steve3007]

On the face of it you might like to think that forensics are more likley to give a better testimony, yet the history of forenisic testimony is littlered with the miscarraiges of justice.
Not only because there is a tendancy to value "objective" methid over witness statements, but for the fact that forensics can be; wrong; faked; offer results seemingly to convict but without care can be irrelevant without careful understanding; inadequate; disputable; and contensious.

Yes, that is a good point about the attitudes we have towards different types of evidence. As a general rule, the more watertight we think the evidence is the more difficult it is to fight it when it's wrong or faked. At least with witness testimony we're aware of the flaws in human perception and memory and can make allowances for them.

Don't be Irish on a train playing cards.

Fair point. The Birmingham Six.

[Steve3007]

HIstory involves mainly accounts of events derived from witnesses (hence its similarity to eye wtness testimony). Archaeology is a sort of "science" of the human cultural past...

OK. I see the distinction you're making between history and science.

[Sculptor1]

HIstory involves mainly accounts of events derived from witnesses (hence its similarity to eye wtness testimony). Archaeology is a sort of "science" of the human cultural past...

OK. I see the distinction you're making between history and science.

Speaking as a person who spent far too long studying archaeology - there's more to it than a "science" of human culture.

[Pattern-chaser]

But, but, but ... it is the "motives, theoretical ideas, etc." that drive the creative endeavours that result in "new data", isn't it?

When someone produces evidence that you can see, what the person was thinking or feeling is unimportant to its usefulness.

You miss my point. (Only) when the roof is erected and complete, the scaffolding is "unimportant to its usefulness", yes? Unless scientists creatively devise means of capturing and verifying "new data", there will be no "new data", yes?

[Ecurb]

You miss my point. (Only) when the roof is erected and complete, the scaffolding is "unimportant to its usefulness", yes? Unless scientists creatively devise means of capturing and verifying "new data", there will be no "new data", yes?

That was not only your point, but the point of the New Yorker article.

[Ecurb]

Speaking as a person who spent far too long studying archaeology - there's more to it than a "science" of human culture.

Of course. I'm over simplifying. However, archaeology thrives on hard data collection, which, acc. the New Yorker article, is the moving force behind science.

[Jack D Ripper]

But, but, but ... it is the "motives, theoretical ideas, etc." that drive the creative endeavours that result in "new data", isn't it?

When someone produces evidence that you can see, what the person was thinking or feeling is unimportant to its usefulness.

You miss my point. (Only) when the roof is erected and complete, the scaffolding is "unimportant to its usefulness", yes? Unless scientists creatively devise means of capturing and verifying "new data", there will be no "new data", yes?

You seem to be missing my point. To use your metaphor, once the roof is made, it does not matter what the scaffolding was like, whether it was brown or grey or any other color, nor does it matter if it was made of steel, wood, or some other material. Once the roof is made, it does not matter how wide the scaffolding was, or any other characteristic it may have had. What matters is the roof. And you cannot tell by looking at the roof what color the scaffolding was, nor the material it was made of, nor how wide it was, etc. The particular scaffolding that was used is no longer relevant at that point.