Thread 9—Theories and testimony

      Thread 9 contained only two messages, which focused on theories and testimony. The first message, from N, contained 15 comments on parts of my essay. Practically every comment was flawed. To show how uniformly wrong N was, I reproduce his entire message along with the errors in his comments:

Essay: One of the classical ways of evaluating a scientific theory is to see whether it correctly predicts other things that are true or eventually discovered to be true. Difficult or improbable predictions count far more than easy predictions do. A well-known example of a difficult prediction was Einstein's that light waves are bent by massive objects like stars. When this deflection was first observed, it represented a triumph for the theory of relativity. All theories, which are generalizations or extensions from known areas into unknown, predict things. It is very instructive to compare the levels of prediction by the various “theories” in the JFK case.

N: I'm sure you are aware that theories can be tested for their validity.  The WC decided to test their “theory” using Oswald's rifle. How'd they do?

      The first sentence was gratuitous because the essay stated the same thing. If N was trying to use the first sentence to refer to some other way of testing theories, he expressed himself wrongly. The last two sentences dealt with the murky area of what the rifle tests really showed. N seemed unaware of the difficulty of interpreting the results. He also seemed to be implying that that tests did not support the WC, when in fact they did. They showed that three shots could be fired in as little as 4.6 seconds, when somewhere between 4.8 and >7 seconds was available.

Essay: But first a word about the meaning of “theory.” Science reserves “theory” for an idea that has survived initial levels of testing and has emerged as a serious contender for "truth." The idea begins as a mere hypothesis, often one among many that seek to explain a set of observations. The hypothesis must beat out the others and be accepted as the “working hypothesis.” Then it must be tested as rigorously as possible, maybe many times, and refined repeatedly.

N: And the WC tested Oswald’s rifle as rigorously as possible with how many shooters?

      N seemed unaware that the number of test shooters was not critical, as long as one succeeded. In fact, even if none succeeded, that still would not prove that Oswald or anyone else couldn’t have done it that day. This test was very much like proving a negative, which is impossible.

Essay: Only after the working hypothesis has passed all known tests is it accorded the elevated status of “theory.”

   Viewed in this light, there is only one theory in the JFK assassination-the idea of a lone gunman. Not only has this explanation been tested severely, repeatedly, and continuously over the last 36 years, but it has survived that ordeal handily.

N: Handily? Then why is there debate?

      N mistakenly assumed that the continuing debate meant that the lone gunman theory could not have passed its tests. Here he was guilty of not considering all possible answers to his question, another being that it passed but conspiracists refused to recognize the fact.

N: Let's examine how “handily” it has survived. We have the WC “theory” that three shots were fired after the tree. Has that theory been proven? Has it been successfully recreated? We also have Posner’s theory of one shot before, and two shots after, the tree. No one has even tried to duplicate that one so I guess that hasn’t been proven either. Then there’s the LN ”theory” that only two shots were fired and an empty round ejected from Oswald’s rifle. Has that one been proven? I don’t think so.

So it appears that the LNers have handily had their “theories” survive - all three of them. Simultaneously.

      Here N showed that he had not comprehended the essay, where “surviving” is explicitly defined operationally as “remaining consistent with all the validated physical evidence.” He set up a false standard by requiring that details of three variants of the theory be positively established. This sprit was wholly inconsistent with my essay and had no place here.

Essay: (Here we define “surviving” operationally, as remaining consistent with all the validated physical evidence-the “strong” evidence that we make so much of in this course.) No such thing can be said for the conspiracy theories, however. Not one of them has survived the same test, for not one is consistent with the same physical evidence that nonconspiracy is.

N: And what would be the consequences if there was an error in that physical evidence?

      Theories do not have to respond to hypothetical situations such as errors in physical evidence. We base conclusions on positive evidence, not suppositions. This is one of the fundamental aspects of critical thinking that N seemed unaware of.

Essay: At best, the conspiracies that have been proposed are first-generation hypotheses, or just “hypotheses” for short. They failed to make the cut in that first round that nonconspiracy passed with ease. So we should never speak of the “Cuban theory,” for example, or the “Mafia theory”—they are the “Cuban hypothesis” and the “Mafia hypothesis” that coexist with the “nonconspiracy theory.”

N: By that logic, we should never speak of the “single bullet theory” either and it should be called, instead, the “single bullet hypothesis”.

      N’s logic is once again incorrect. If he is presuming that the SBT did not make the first cut, he must show it. Although the SBT has not been proven, all its attempted rebuttals can be shown to be wrong factually or logically, and no alternative scenario accords with the physical evidence nearly as well. Thus the SBT must be the working hypothesis, even though it has passed enough tests that it is essentially a theory. (See essay to that effect on my JFK web site.)

Essay: Let us compare the major predictions of each conspiracy hypothesis with those of the nonconspiracy theory and see how they do. Generically, each conspiracy hypothesis predicts that evidence will be found (sooner or later) to “prove” it true (strictly speaking, evidence that will support the hypothesis). Since only one explanation for the assassination can be true, the conspiracy hypotheses are also implicitly predicting that all other explanations will be found to be inconsistent with the evidence, i.e., that they will be falsified. As we have seen abundantly, the evidence for both these predictions must be physical and validated in order for “proof” and “disproof” to have any meaning. So the conspiracy hypotheses predict that they will ultimately be supported by strong physical evidence and that the other explanations will be falsified in the same way.

N: The flip side of the coin is that the LNers are predicting this evidence won’t be found.

      Correct, but the essay said exactly that. It appears that N didn’t recognize that.

Essay: How do the conspiracy hypotheses do? You already know the answer, which is very similar to the one for the question posed at the beginning of the semester as to why, 36 years and multiple investigations after the assassination, none of the many conspiracy hypotheses has edged out the others.

N: What a coincidence! None of the three LN hypotheses have edged out the others either.

      N’s remark was invalid. His three “LN hypotheses” were not distinct because their only difference was much smaller (timing of shots) than the differences between conspiracy theories. Thus, “edging out the others” had no meaning.

Essay: None has emerged because none of them have evidence enough to beat out the others, which is a polite way of saying that none are consistent with the physical evidence.

N: Another amazing coincidence! That's the same problem the three LN hypotheses suffer from!

      Simply wrong. His three “LN hypotheses” were indeed consistent with the physical evidence. It seems that N was unaware of what the basic physical evidence is.

Essay: So with respect to the first prediction, not one of the conspiracy hypotheses has yet found the necessary physical evidence to support itself. Worse, most of these hypotheses are inconsistent with some of the physical evidence.

N: I think that summarizes the problems with the WC theory, the Posner theory, and the R2Judge theory rather well.

      See previous remark.

Essay: In other words, the conspiracy hypotheses fail their first predictive test. With respect to their second prediction, that all the other explanations will be falsified by physical evidence, the conspiracy hypotheses fail as well, for the major reason that the nonconspiracy theory is consistent with all physical evidence. Thus the conspiracy hypotheses fail both their predictive tests.

N: ??? You're saying that if the nonconspiracy evidence is consistent with “all physical evidence” then any prediction that future evidence might arise disproving the LN hypthoses is a failed prediction?

      N was very mixed up here. Obviously, no prediction about the future can be a failed prediction because the future isn’t here yet. The essay referred to predictions that have succeeded and failed between the assassination and now.

Essay: How does the nonconspiracy theory do? It passes both tests. Its prediction that it will be supported by all physical evidence is borne out in abundance.

N: In abundance? Poor choice of words. I think he meant to say that all physical evidence is “handily” borne out in, sheer overwhelming abundance of irrefuteable proof. I believe that was what he was trying to say.

      N remained mixed up. The predictions have been borne out. Physical evidence cannot be borne out.

Essay: Similarly, its prediction that the conspiracy hypotheses will either not be supported or will be falsified outright has also come true. To make matters stronger, note that this situation has held for the last 36 years-from the moment that the physical evidence was in, which was virtually within 24 hours of the assassination, nonconspiracy was predicting correctly and conspiracy was predicting incorrectly. Nothing about these predictions has changed in 36 years.

N: For how many thousands of years did we think the world was flat? Is there a relationship between how long one believes something and how true it is?

And, in 36 years, I see the LNer’s are no closer to settling on their own explanation. Doesn’t look good for their side, does it?

      (1) False analogy between predictions about the assassination and about the shape of the earth. We had all most of the physical evidence within hours of the assassination, and virtually all of it within weeks to months, whereas evidence about the earth required millennia to develop. (2) N ignored the fact that the scientific method (and my essay) clearly leave room for views to be reversed after long times have passed, although longer times carry lower probabilities. (3) If N wanted to make a statement about times and probabilities, he should have used a statement rather than a question. But there would seem to be some sort of relationship between probability, time, and the difficulty of getting the needed evidence, not just between probability and time.

Essay: Now, 36 years is not the end of time, but it is effectively very close to it, given that in that period there have been two huge governmental investigations

N: One of which concluded conspiracy.

      Based on a single line of highly indirect evidence that was never confirmed and has now been repudiated.

Essay: and a few smaller ones, one massive release of documents, and the continuous intensive efforts of hundreds to thousands of committed citizens. Every day that passes, the probability declines that anything significant remains to be found. The handwriting on the wall is becoming ever clearer, but will the people ever see it?

N: Christopher Columbus didn’t.

Lucky for us, huh?

      Hardly. N was creating another false analogy here. Columbus knew that strong evidence supported a view of the earth different from that believed by most people at that time. In that sense, he resembled today’s nonconspiracists rather than the conspiracists that N mistakenly proposed. N may not have realized it, but his argument encouraged conspiracists, who in trusting stories rather than physical evidence resemble the unschooled citizens of Columbus’s time, to change their ways.

N: What you have here, JM, is someone who has declared that the CTer’s have had their chance to prove their case and haven’t, and has also declared that he is the judge of how much time the CTer’s have to do this in, and that they have not met his time line.

Just a thought.

      Here N showed that he fundamentally misunderstood the probabilistic nature of the scientific method. (1) “…have had their chance to prove their case” implies a fixed length of time, which is false. (2) “…he is the judge of how much time…” is also wrong because I can’t set some limit that doesn’t exist. (3) “…they have not met his time line…” is wrong for the same reasons. In not understanding probability and how to apply it, N resembled many other JFK researchers.

In the second message, JM answered N’s points:

N: I’m sure you are aware that theories can be tested for their validity.

JM: Agreed and please note this is only one way to look at theories, I am well aware this is only one test.

*****

N: The WC decided to test their “theory” using Oswald's rifle. How'd they do?

JM: Now you are getting into the area of how to interpret collected data. Naturally I accept the version Oswald's MC could perform the task of being the only weapon used that day. But that is not testing a theory, that is interpreting the evidence that may or may not support the theory.

*****

N: And the WC tested Oswald's rifle as rigorously as possible with how many shooters?

JM: By asking how many shooters are you trying to talk about sample sizes and statistical probablities. It requires only one shooter to perform the act to prove that it can be done. I believe this was also supported by Donahue. Thus not usable as evidence to disprove the hypothesis of Oswald’s MC being the weapon that was used to kill JFK. Now please note, this does not rule out other shooters or who did the shooting.

*****

Essay: Only after the working hypothesis has passed all known tests is it accorded the elevated status of “theory.”

   Viewed in this light, there is only one theory in the JFK assassination-the idea of a lone gunman. Not only has this explanation been tested severely, repeatedly, and continuously over the last 36 years, but it has survived that ordeal handily.

N: Handily? Then why is there debate?

Let’s examine how “handily” it has survived. We have the WC “theory” that three shots were fired after the tree. Has that theory been proven? Has it been successfully recreated? We also have Posner’s theory of one shot before, and two shots after, the tree. No one has even tried to duplicate that one so I guess that hasn’t been proven either. Then there's the LN “theory” that only two shots were fired and an empty round ejected from Oswald’s rifle. Has that one been proven? I don’t think so.

So it appears that the LNers have handily had their “theories” survive - all three of them. Simultaneously.

JM: Well, you have combined several theories into one, which of course is impossible. But in the three you do mention, the main hypothesis is that Lee Harvey Oswald fired some of the shots that killed JFK and wounded Connally. IMO, the evidence that is based on has not been disproven to this date.

*****

Essay: How do the conspiracy hypotheses do? You already know the answer, which is very similar to the one for the question posed at the beginning of the semester as to why, 36 years and multiple investigations after the assassination, none of the many conspiracy hypotheses has edged out the others.

N: What a coincidence! None of the three LN hypotheses have edged out the others either.

JM: When all three agree that Oswald did the shooting of the MC that killed JFK and wounded Connally, then the false hypotheses that you have written will be wrong, but the correct hypothesis as I have stated has not been disproven.

*****

Essay: None has emerged because none of them have evidence enough to beat out the others, which is a polite way of saying that none are consistent with the physical evidence.

N: Another amazing coincidence! That’s the same problem the three LN hypotheses suffer from!

JM: See above. But, N, tell me do you accept the Files story, the CIA story, the Mafia story, the Cuban story, the anti-Cuban story, the Texas oilmen story, the FBI story, the Johnson story, or are we still working on the two Clown story?

*****

Essay: So with respect to the first prediction, not one of the conspiracy hypotheses has yet found the necessary physical evidence to support itself. Worse, most of these hypotheses are inconsistent with some of the physical evidence.

N: I think that summarizes the problems with the WC theory, the Posner theory, and the R2Judge theory rather well.

JM: And please note that KR does talk of the WC theory. Hope you have read some of my other responses because I am tempting to not repeat myself and have tried to address different ideas with each.

As to this article I have said that while the evidence seems very strong against Oswald’s involvement, that by not being able to prove a negative, that is there was no conspiracy, for those who accept Oswald's involvement, all they need to do to prove a conspiracy is to prove who the co-conspirators are. The harder task is for those who do not believe Oswald was involved then they must also prove all of the evidence is faked. This is not a LNer idea against a CTer idea, this is logical thinking.

*****

Essay: In other words, the conspiracy hypotheses fail their first predictive test. With respect to their second prediction, that all the other explanations will be falsified by physical evidence, the conspiracy hypotheses fail as well, for the major reason that the nonconspiracy theory is consistent with all physical evidence. Thus the conspiracy hypotheses fail both their predictive tests.

N: ??? You're saying that if the nonconspiracy evidence is consistent with “all physical evidence” then any prediction that future evidence might arise disproving the LN hypthoses is a failed prediction?

JM: Well KR said whatever first. My interpretation would be that since KR does claim the WC version is a theory, that so far has not been disproven. But if future evidence disproves the prediction of Oswald’s guilt, then the theory would be null. That is, the WC version would be proved wrong. In this case, the new evidence would have proven a conspiracy. That is why I say the article is not a slam against CTers, even though many seem to have taken it that way.

I liked the article because it simplified a way to look at the information and could be used by either side to evaluate the evidence. It definitely is not a complete course on critical thinking or the JFK assassination. But if it has stimulated communication, that cannot be bad.

*****

N: What you have here, JM, is someone who has declared that the CTer’s have had their chance to prove their case and haven’t, and has also declared that he is the judge of how much time the CTer’s have to do this in, and that they have not met his time line.

Just a thought.

JM: N, while I think the longer the time the less chance of finding new information is generally true, I accept there are several notable exceptions. A mentioned some in his post. So, I do not defend any time table as A puts it. Also, I believe maybe the timing element is what lawmen work from in a criminal situation, but even that has exceptions.

This ended Thread 9. Like the others, it was low-grade. In fact, the only correct point that N made was one where he repeated material in the essay.

Ahead to Thread 10
Back to Thread 8
Back to Anatomy Of A Newsgroup Discussion