in article 418D9B61.60489F4F@yahoo.co.jp, Eric Takabayashi at
etakajp@yahoo.co.jp wrote on 11/7/04 12:49 PM:

> Ernest Schaal wrote:
> 
>> The problem with talking about the "truth" is that it is not something that
>> be readily discovered. Just look at how long we have been looking for the
>> "truth" about disease and yet we still don't fully know the mechanism of the
>> common cold and how to prevent it. Constantly, in science, people are making
>> new interpretations of reality, based on new discoveries and new data.
> 
> Yes, they keep on trying, and may encounter obstacles to medical advances,
> just like researchers keeps trying when coming up with new surveillance and
> investigation technologies that people also do not wish to accept.

But the nature of science and technology is that it is never as good as we
think it is. Just look at the weather. Despite the best computers and
thousands upon thousands of weathermen, we still can't accurately predict
with 100% certainty whether or not it is going to rain on your party.

Also, some of the "investigation technologies" have major ramifications as
to individual privacy and civil rights.

> 
>> The use of the word "truth" makes it sound like you think you fully
>> understand what that "truth" is.
> 
> What do you propose the truth is, in a criminal case? What 12 amateurs who may
> have had no prior knowledge and only hear what is ruled admissible, and what
> should be convincing arguments from both sides, happen to agree upon? Why is
> this better than knowing what actually happened?

The "investigation technologies" you recommend have major ramifications of
invasion of privacy, with definite shades of "1984." Just because something
is efficient, does not mean that it is desirable as a model for society.

>> According to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, we can never truly know.