On Mar 12, 4:05=A0am, Raymond <Bluerhy...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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.=
...
Forget it . I posted this a hundred times and a hundred times was it
ignored . If CTer's have to eliminate weak evidence , eye-witness
testimony that not only conflicts with other eye-witness testimony but
the same eye-witness who's giving that testimony there doomed with
nothing to say , not even a mouse fart !
CTer's have fast moved themselves into the realm of being irrelevant
through sheer stupidy , lack of understanding how to investigate a
crime and their own criminal behavior in accusing innocent people in
JFK's death for their own sick , twisted and preverted aims !
That's Official !
tl
|
