Truth, strike two
May. 19th, 2008 04:34 pmThanks for some interesting and surprising responses to the JFK question. At the risk of creating more heat than light, let me try another example, one that I think might be a little less comfortable to be neutral about.
It seems that many people believe that on the morning of September 11, 2001, four thousand or more Israelis who were working at the World Trade Center did not show up for work.
Are those people wrong?
(Update: amended as per
ajva's caveat)
It seems that many people believe that on the morning of September 11, 2001, four thousand or more Israelis who were working at the World Trade Center did not show up for work.
Are those people wrong?
(Update: amended as per
no subject
Date: 2008-06-13 02:00 pm (UTC)It seems to me that those people are almost certainly factually incorrect. As with anything, it is a question of probability. There is a vanishingly small but non-zero probability that the laws of gravity will stop working tomorrow lunchtime; that is why science deals with falsifiabilities, not verifiabilities. In this instance, we can check historical records and if >4000 Israelis were found to be working at the WTC and are discovered to have not turned up to work on 9/11 then that would be evidence in favour of our anti-Semite conspiracy loon; it wouldn't be absolute proof that they were part of a conspiracy, but it would be a fair leap if it turned out to be true. People have looked; it isn't true. But even before I checked the records, I'd be highly suspicious of such a claim because of the staggering unlikelehood of such a conspiracy being pulled off. Are they honestly suggesting that no-one before or after the event talked? This is the problem of almost all conspiracy theories.
Regarding some of the comments concerning an objective truth, I believe there is but would struggle to justify it. However, I think Karen's right that we should behave as if there is as the alternative does no useful work. I usually get into that discussion in relation to religion, but I suspect that would muddy the waters even more ;-).