j*******7
发帖数: 6300 | 1 Good Reasons to Trust a Courtroom Over a Laboratory When Trying to Determine
What Happened in the Past
I’m sometimes challenged to defend what I believe with science. In a
culture that places a high value on scientific exploration and empirical
evidence, folks often claim that they can’t trust anything that can’t be
demonstrated scientifically. But there are, in fact, many things that we
know without the benefit of science. In fact, the very statement, “Science
is the only way to really know the truth” cannot be verified with any kind
of scientific experiment; it is, instead, a philosophical proclamation about
the nature of truth. I’m also challenged at times to defend the value of
an approach toward truth that draws its inspiration from the courtroom
rather than the laboratory. Isn’t it true that scientists share their
research with colleagues and ask for advice? Doesn’t the peer review
process assist the scientific endeavor and help scientists to find the truth
? Lawyers, on the other hand, seem to be working in a much more adversarial
courtroom environment; one attorney is advocating for one side while another
is being paid to advocate for the opposite position. Shouldn’t we trust
the intellectual rigor of scientists over the partisanship of lawyers?
Well, there are several good reasons to trust a courtroom over a laboratory
when trying to determine what happened at some point in the distant past:
The Nature of the Courtroom Vets Claims Aggressively
If you trust that a scientific peer review process ensures an accurate
outcome, you’re sadly mistaken. The antiquated prior theories in virtually
every discipline of science (theories that have now been abandoned by the
scientific community) were all subject to peer review. This process of
review was inadequate to exclude false ideas. Courtrooms have a far more
aggressive vetting process. Opposing attorneys begin by opposing each other
’s ideas and claims. This public vetting of truth claims is far more
aggressive than scientific peer review.
Historical Events Are Largely Unrepeatable
In addition, historical events are poor candidates for scientific
experimentation in the first place. We cannot establish experiments that
capture the precise elements and physical relationships that were present at
the time of the first event under consideration. How many times have you
asked your kids to tell you what happened earlier in the day? Have you ever
been inclined to verify their claims with an experiment? Instead, weren’t
you more likely to find another eyewitness if you wanted to make sure your
kids weren’t lying? We intuitively lean toward courtroom models rather than
laboratory models when investigating events in the past because we
understand the limitations of the scientific method in this area.
Science Is Not Absent from the Courtroom
It’s important to remember that courtrooms are not devoid of scientific
examination. There are many limited aspects of historical events that can be
examined scientifically to corroborate the claims of eyewitnesses and help
to establish what happened at a particular crime scene. There are many forms
of forensic science that are employed in corroborating such claims, and
while these scientific endeavors are inadequate to fully tell us what
happened, they are sufficient to provide us with limited information to
assist in the process. The courtroom is not a place where science is ignored
or demeaned; it’s simply a place where the limited role of science is
understood and acknowledged.
Lawyers Don’t Make a Final Decision Anyway
Our culture trusts scientists far more than it trusts lawyers, that’s a
fairly safe statement. When a scientist tells the culture that something is
true, it is far more likely to be embraced without challenge. That’s
another reason why courtrooms are a far better place to determine what
happened in the historic past. When a scientist makes a claim standing in a
laboratory, he is often the final arbiter of truth. Other scientists may
weigh in and agree (or disagree) with the first scientist, but “non-
scientist” observers play little role in the process. When a lawyer makes a
claim standing in a courtroom, he is never the final arbiter of truth.
Other lawyers may weigh in and agree (or disagree), but an entire collection
of “non-lawyer observers” play the most important role in the process.
Jurors make the final decision in the courtroom and it’s the juror’s
decision that is then examined and questioned by the culture. Jurors stand
between the claims of lawyers (and their associates) and the culture that is
waiting for a decision. There is no such jury standing between the claims
of scientists (and their associates) and the culture that is waiting for a
decision.
The daily process of determining truth that occurs in courtrooms across
America has been established for a reason. It’s still the single best
method of determining what happened in the past. It’s time-tested and
vetted. It has an elaborate set of regulations and precautionary rules that
strive to limit error and provide for appeal when error occurs. It still
provides the best possible models and analogies for determining what
happened in the recent past (i.e. the historical claims related to criminal
cases) and in the distant past (i.e. the historical claims related to
Christianity).
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2015/good-reasons-to-trust-a-co |
|
