Friday, February 18, 2005


Who do you believe?

Suppose a person claims to have a Rembrandt painting. A published snapshot of the painting reveals that it looks amazingly like an iMac®, complete with the Apple® logo. Three experts hired by the person claim the painting is genuine; two other experts not hired by the owner claim it is fake, as do a dozen other experts who have not examined the painting but have seen the photo.

Whose judgement of the painting's veracity should be considered more credible--the majority of those who examined the painting itself (who, by a 3-2 margin, claim it genuine), or those who merely saw the photograph (and who say that the photograph, while blurry, is sufficient to show that the painting is clearly a fake).

A photograph of a painting can never provide sufficient evidence to prove its veracity, but can provide plenty of evidence to prove its falsehood.

Michael Schiavo claims that his doctors provide clear and unambiguous evidence that his wife is in a permanent vegetative state. He claims that other doctors who merely examined video of Terri (he's only allowed two doctors not hired by him to examine Terri personally) are in no position to accurately diagnose her. If, however, the video clearly shows behavior which is inconsistent with Florida's definition of "persistent vegetative state", which is more credible: the doctors who say that, or the doctors who pretend the videos don't show what they clearly do?

You got my vote. I don't believe the "husband".

Nonetheless, at this time we must recognize that the legal system in Florida is broken. This should not cost Terri her life. There is one more thing that we can do: offer to pay off the "husband".

Here is the proposition. Please give it your consideration and support.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?