Michael: I don't understand that the courts are happy to leave it to the
jury to sort through all the information. It seems to me that witnesses are
asked to be careful, if not scrupulous, in what they report. I agree that,
in the end, the jury (or judge) comes to a conclusion about the "truth" but
the hope is that it is based on each witness' best efforts to be truthful.
Which is it? You assume an either-or answer here. Persons differ. For some,
one answer may apply; for some the other.
Geoff C
From: Michael Brady <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Malcolm Gladwell and beliefs)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 10:00:20 -0500
On Dec 31, 2008, at 3:57 PM, GEOFF CREALOCK wrote:
"... All memories are fiction" I wonder if you would feel constrained if
you were required to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth".
The truthfulness you allude to is a legal concept. A crucial part of this
use of "truth" is that it can be verified, or at least subjected to tests
of its veracity. Please note that in court, when testimony is given and
evidence adduced, all of the testimony and much of the evidence consist of
representations, which are fictions, they are representation and reports
and replicas of some thing or event. The crime scene photographs, the eye
witness's description, the 911 tape recording, etc., all of them
constitute parts of a total view of the crime being prosecuted. After they
are presented, they are then tested. It is in the testing that the truth
of the representations are verified or disproved. The truth tests
determine for the jury whether the evidence is reliable. That's the truth
of the matter.
Presumably one fiction is as good, or better than another.
Which is it? <g>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[email protected]
