Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives' mouths.That's Bertrand Russell speaking. The greatest sin is not to hold wrong beliefs, but to refuse to verify them empirically. In its own domain, science has burned through this prejudice thoroughly and with extraordinary results. Controlled experiment is one of the most important ideas humankind has ever had.
But outside of the domain of science, anti-empiricism reigns, and its rule is deadly. Contempt for experiment kills innocent people. I'm not exaggerating, and I don't mean it in the sense of "It used to kill innocent people in senseless wars in Medieval Europe;" I mean it in the sense of "It's killing innocent people right now in the United States judicial system."
Scores of people have been imprisoned, and yes, also executed, based on beliefs, professed by forensics "experts," which were no better than urban legends. Beliefs that, had they been actually tested in controlled experiments, would have been discarded once and for all. Experiments show that flaking of concrete in a puddle-like shape, or multiple ignition points occur frequently in accidental fires, and therefore cannot constitute evidence of arson. Tell that to all those people who have been convicted of arson, and sentenced to long prison terms, or death, based on precisely those myths. Experiments can show that one cannot tell with much precision at which time bruises were inflicted just by looking at them. Tell that to people wrongfully convicted based on that ludicrous belief.
Et cetera, of course. There are many more such cases and such myths. The idea that beliefs need to be verified empirically, no matter how strongly they are held, or how commonsensical they may sound, is held in deep contempt by our entire justice system, by its each and every branch. Which of course means that the lofty notion that everyone is "presumed innocent until proven guilty" is really just a (rather cruel) joke.
I'd like to see a series of posts that debunk a few myths, one at a time, and in more depth.
ReplyDeleteHere's something of note. From the NYtimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/nyregion/22judge.html?pagewanted=2&hp
ReplyDeleteThe jury was given the standard instruction not to consider possible punishment during deliberations. After three days, on Oct. 5, 2007, Mr. Polizzi was found guilty of all 12 counts of receipt of child pornography and 11 counts of possession. Then Judge Weinstein broke from the script with a question almost never posed in court: If the jurors had known about the minimum prison sentence, would they have voted to convict?
Five jurors spoke up against imprisonment. Two said they would have changed their votes. Judge Weinstein tossed out the guilty verdict on the more serious receipt counts and ordered a new trial. He sentenced Mr. Polizzi to a year in prison for the possession counts, which Mr. Polizzi has already served.