This posting is prompted by the thread “What Standard of Proof do you Apply”, but it does not really contribute much to the thread as it is currently running. My point is a general one and relates to the nature of FH investigation. I hope this is the correct forum to be posting it. I shall be brief.
Suppose we take our model of “proof” from the Law Courts. I have to declare that I have no expertise whatsoever in law and I stand to be corrected, but it seems to me that in a court case there are two major influences which are brought to bear on the jury: evidence and argument.
First, the assumptions have to be that the evidence before the court is as full as it reasonably could be; that it is not mistaken or inaccurate; that it has not been falsified or rigged. Then, on the basis of such a set of understandings the members of the jury feel they can rely on the evidence when coming to their verdict.
Second, the success or failure of the prosecution and of the defence often depends upon the persuasive arguments of the respective barristers. The arguments must not be specious, but be logical and not import information which is contrary to the evidence. But they should not lack imagination or flair; they should be insightful; and that they should make connections which the jury might not be expected to make for itself.
Then at some stage the jury has to decide on the verdict. Now here there are phrases such as “the balance of probabilities” and “reasonable doubt”. One can only approximate to the notion of truth, here; all one can have is a feeling of confidence that what one decides is just and in accord with the evidence as it has been presented. Not only that, but if the jury have got the verdict wrong, can they live with the consequences of that? We know of cases where innocent people have been incarcerated or hanged. There was neither truth nor proof in those cases, there could not have been. They had got the verdict wrong. There had been merely a sense of confidence in the jury that they had got it right.
And this is, I think, as much as we should ask of ourselves when carrying out FH research. Having accumulated as much evidence as we reasonably can and having given order and shape to that evidence and set it in the context of other evidence, the question we should ask ourselves is not “Is it true; is it proven?”, but “what doubts do I have or what level of doubt do I have that I have got it right? And can I live with the consequences if I have got it wrong?” If the answer to that second question is "no" then we must search for more evidence or perhaps look at the evidence we do have in a different way.
Fortunately, unlike our day in court, we can constantly ask those questions of ourselves and can review our decisions in the light of new evidence and our own persuasive arguments. Henry
Suppose we take our model of “proof” from the Law Courts. I have to declare that I have no expertise whatsoever in law and I stand to be corrected, but it seems to me that in a court case there are two major influences which are brought to bear on the jury: evidence and argument.
First, the assumptions have to be that the evidence before the court is as full as it reasonably could be; that it is not mistaken or inaccurate; that it has not been falsified or rigged. Then, on the basis of such a set of understandings the members of the jury feel they can rely on the evidence when coming to their verdict.
Second, the success or failure of the prosecution and of the defence often depends upon the persuasive arguments of the respective barristers. The arguments must not be specious, but be logical and not import information which is contrary to the evidence. But they should not lack imagination or flair; they should be insightful; and that they should make connections which the jury might not be expected to make for itself.
Then at some stage the jury has to decide on the verdict. Now here there are phrases such as “the balance of probabilities” and “reasonable doubt”. One can only approximate to the notion of truth, here; all one can have is a feeling of confidence that what one decides is just and in accord with the evidence as it has been presented. Not only that, but if the jury have got the verdict wrong, can they live with the consequences of that? We know of cases where innocent people have been incarcerated or hanged. There was neither truth nor proof in those cases, there could not have been. They had got the verdict wrong. There had been merely a sense of confidence in the jury that they had got it right.
And this is, I think, as much as we should ask of ourselves when carrying out FH research. Having accumulated as much evidence as we reasonably can and having given order and shape to that evidence and set it in the context of other evidence, the question we should ask ourselves is not “Is it true; is it proven?”, but “what doubts do I have or what level of doubt do I have that I have got it right? And can I live with the consequences if I have got it wrong?” If the answer to that second question is "no" then we must search for more evidence or perhaps look at the evidence we do have in a different way.
Fortunately, unlike our day in court, we can constantly ask those questions of ourselves and can review our decisions in the light of new evidence and our own persuasive arguments. Henry
Comment