Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/05/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]yup, dicey is an understatement.... as in ...."we need an eyewitness (wrong well over half the time) to vouch for the credibility of DNA fingerprinting, which is "right" to the tune of 99.99999999 %.... or so."..... Steve > Of course...I think the idea though was that if we can no longer trust > "scientific data" - as in film - we may need eye witnesses to verify the > reliability of the film. Gets pretty dicey all the way around. > > B. D. > > of course this raises the issue of reliablity of eyewitnesses versus hard > scientific > data....Steve > > > Fascinating point, Neil. In fact, one of the MIT researchers noted that > > perhaps we are heading for a time when, as was the case in the Middle > Ages, > > we will have to rely on people bearing witness to the truth of what we are > > shown. ;-) > > > > B. D. > > > > > > I don't see anything to fear in what BD and others have said about this. > > Three hundred years ago, nobody would have accepted a painting as evidence > > of what actually happened. The acceptance of recorded images, video or > > still, as a literal record is a relatively recent thing. In another fifty > > years or so, I doubt whether a video or a photograph will be accepted as > > evidence it court as the means to produce doctored images > indistinguishable > > from the real thing will be within the reach of almost anyone. > > > > We'll have to go back to trusting people's reputations and integrity when > we > > form our view of the World. > > > > Neil - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html