Types of Evidence Useful for Understanding the JFK Assassination
Purging the unreliable evidence
Welcome to the frustrating world of the JFK assassination!
What do we do when we can't trust most of the evidence? We follow
steps 3a,b of the pattern of critical thinking offered in "A critical
method for understanding the JFK assassination." First we divide the
available evidence into strong and weak, where strong effectively
means physical. Then we eliminate all the weak evidence and proceed
with the physical
Step 3 is perhaps the most distinctive of the nine steps in this
pattern of critical thinking. It is controversial among JFK
researchers because it goes against the grain of so much of their
research. And yet it is fully justified from the standpoints of logic,
common sense, and tradition. It offers the fastest and most efficient
path to delimiting the answer. It offers the most realistic *****sment
of the quality and quantity of the available evidence. It offers an
immediate sense of how close to an answer we are likely to get. (See
the essay on asking the right first question.) Anyone who does not
follow this method is going against logic, common sense, and centuries
of critical tradition, and is guaranteeing an uncertain, if not wrong,
answer. Seen in this light, there is no choice.
Of course, clearing out bad data will significantly restrict the
number of conclusions we will be able to draw. It will also restrict
the number of topics we will be able to consider. Many JFK researchers
consider this penalty too harsh to bear. I say the opposite--I consider
it a relief to have settled this all-im****tant question. The last
thing I want is to be wrong about any part of the assassination. Far
better to remain silent about some part than to be wrong about it.
It is very im****tant to be conservative here--better to err on the side
of eliminating some data that are correct than to let in any data that
are wrong. The moment we include any data of dubious reliability, we
can no longer be sure that any subsequent conclusions are correct. Our
goal needs to be much like the physician's "First, do no harm." I see
no way to avoid these harsh measures if we really want to get the
answer.
But this approach is really nothing new--we do the same in all matters
of im****tance in our daily lives. When we go looking for a new car,
for example, we want to be sure that we are provided with the correct
information. If a salesman misleads us or offers incorrect
information, we go somewhere else immediately. When we set out to buy
a house, we often get it inspected so that we know the truth about it.
Why then should we be any less rigorous with the JFK assassination?
Surprisingly few JFK researchers treat their evidence like this. They
let in anything and everything, and hope that somehow the weaker
information will be sorted out in the wash. Even if they give initial
lip service to hard evidence, they don't follow it in practice. They
just take it all in and arbitrarily emphasize what seems best to them.
Those practices guarantee disaster. The link between evidence and
conclusions cannot be beaten--include unreliable evidence and your
conclusions will be unreliable. I submit that no one among us wants
that.
Then why do JFK researchers insist on including unreliable data? It
clearly is an irrational act. We had best leave this question until
later in the course, for the answers are not pretty.
SEE:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/critical_thinking/Types_of_ev_useful_for_under.html
|
