I'm an occasional fan of the airplane disasters show on Smithsonian network. It is very well-produced and splices in actual footage with computer-generated imagery and actors and survivors, but the real story is always the investigation - and how long, tedious and painstakingly thorough the investigation is. Numerous false leads and parallel "causes" are explored and tested. They don't stop at "proximate" cause - they ask, "OK, then how did THAT happen?" and "Why did the system not catch THAT?" You eventually get the ultimate conclusion, published in the official, final accident investigation, as well as what they've done to ensure it cannot happen again. This conclusion comes after months and even years of analysis and review, and the answers are sometimes startling. It's a great program and it does a great service to your theme today - we need to be patient and let the experts work it out in all its detail.
But the underlying assumption is that our government shares our interest in getting to the truth and getting that truth out to us. I'm confident that's always (usually) the case in the event of aircraft accidents. However there ARE a number of stories in the media where our government intentionally withholds information - the "we'll probably never know" black holes intentionally perpetrated by federal agencies like the FBI and CIA, that lead to "conspiracy theories" - which, lacking any information to debunk them, we're left questioning our federal agencies' role in either the perpetration or coverup of what really happened. Presidential assassination attempts are not a minor crime, and the public has a right to know what's going on, at least in broad terms, as the investigation is conducted. Instead, we're left with the appearance our government agencies are burying the truth and then burying the shovel. Not a good look!
In regard to the propensity for speculation there is much to suggest that it is just a way in which we feed our curiosity and there is no creature on this planet more curious than a human being. I won't say that is necessarily a negative trait because it's one of the things which triggers the need for learning and invention. However, it isn't curiosity by itself which does it. We have another trait that many authors will attest to and that is our natural ability for storytelling. It's been going on since prehistoric man drew on cave walls. As such those two factors in our makeup cause us to frequently create our own truths before and often after any evidence, official or otherwise, is made public.
Only two weeks ago legendary film actor Gene Hackman was found dead in his Santa Fe home along with his wife, classical pianist Betsy Arakawa, and one of the family dogs. As soon as the news was out a torrent of theories must have swept through all social media, public settings and behind closed doors regarding what had happened. If one made a close examination of those first 72 speculative hours the full gamut of conclusions, ranging from foul play to an accidental carbon monoxide leak, was submitted for one's approval or disapproval as the case might be. I won't deny that I had an idea or two about what might have occured in that 12-acre renovated hilltop mansion.
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data.
Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories,
instead of theories to suit facts."
Sherlock Holmes- A Study In Scarlet
Since then certain facts have been brought to light which give a clearer image of what might have led to the tragedy. Many will accept the publicized statements, I being one, whereas others might still cling to certain theories outside what has been presented by official channels. Curiosity is not easily satisfied when the so-called "truth" falls short of the storyteller's expectations. Human nature causes us to wonder and formulate. It can lead to positive results when kept within certain boundaries of what I dare to call rationality.
My wife received a speeding ticket in Savannah last year when on vacation with her girlfriends. She decided to fight it in traffic court. The judge asked her about the incident and she told him she had a “witness” available. The judge asked who and where this witness was, and she replied it was one of her girlfriends standing by to testify over the phone on speaker. The judge gently chided her for failure to sequester the witness according to legal procedure. My wife has no clue regarding the term “rules of evidence,” and thought the judge was a jerk. I often think of myself as a jerk for believing my wife’s master’s degree was a valid proxy for intelligence and critical thinking skills 😢
Couldn’t agree more. And… nice setup with the photo on top. I kept waiting for the article to turn to the topic 🤣
I'm an occasional fan of the airplane disasters show on Smithsonian network. It is very well-produced and splices in actual footage with computer-generated imagery and actors and survivors, but the real story is always the investigation - and how long, tedious and painstakingly thorough the investigation is. Numerous false leads and parallel "causes" are explored and tested. They don't stop at "proximate" cause - they ask, "OK, then how did THAT happen?" and "Why did the system not catch THAT?" You eventually get the ultimate conclusion, published in the official, final accident investigation, as well as what they've done to ensure it cannot happen again. This conclusion comes after months and even years of analysis and review, and the answers are sometimes startling. It's a great program and it does a great service to your theme today - we need to be patient and let the experts work it out in all its detail.
But the underlying assumption is that our government shares our interest in getting to the truth and getting that truth out to us. I'm confident that's always (usually) the case in the event of aircraft accidents. However there ARE a number of stories in the media where our government intentionally withholds information - the "we'll probably never know" black holes intentionally perpetrated by federal agencies like the FBI and CIA, that lead to "conspiracy theories" - which, lacking any information to debunk them, we're left questioning our federal agencies' role in either the perpetration or coverup of what really happened. Presidential assassination attempts are not a minor crime, and the public has a right to know what's going on, at least in broad terms, as the investigation is conducted. Instead, we're left with the appearance our government agencies are burying the truth and then burying the shovel. Not a good look!
In regard to the propensity for speculation there is much to suggest that it is just a way in which we feed our curiosity and there is no creature on this planet more curious than a human being. I won't say that is necessarily a negative trait because it's one of the things which triggers the need for learning and invention. However, it isn't curiosity by itself which does it. We have another trait that many authors will attest to and that is our natural ability for storytelling. It's been going on since prehistoric man drew on cave walls. As such those two factors in our makeup cause us to frequently create our own truths before and often after any evidence, official or otherwise, is made public.
Only two weeks ago legendary film actor Gene Hackman was found dead in his Santa Fe home along with his wife, classical pianist Betsy Arakawa, and one of the family dogs. As soon as the news was out a torrent of theories must have swept through all social media, public settings and behind closed doors regarding what had happened. If one made a close examination of those first 72 speculative hours the full gamut of conclusions, ranging from foul play to an accidental carbon monoxide leak, was submitted for one's approval or disapproval as the case might be. I won't deny that I had an idea or two about what might have occured in that 12-acre renovated hilltop mansion.
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data.
Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories,
instead of theories to suit facts."
Sherlock Holmes- A Study In Scarlet
Since then certain facts have been brought to light which give a clearer image of what might have led to the tragedy. Many will accept the publicized statements, I being one, whereas others might still cling to certain theories outside what has been presented by official channels. Curiosity is not easily satisfied when the so-called "truth" falls short of the storyteller's expectations. Human nature causes us to wonder and formulate. It can lead to positive results when kept within certain boundaries of what I dare to call rationality.
My wife received a speeding ticket in Savannah last year when on vacation with her girlfriends. She decided to fight it in traffic court. The judge asked her about the incident and she told him she had a “witness” available. The judge asked who and where this witness was, and she replied it was one of her girlfriends standing by to testify over the phone on speaker. The judge gently chided her for failure to sequester the witness according to legal procedure. My wife has no clue regarding the term “rules of evidence,” and thought the judge was a jerk. I often think of myself as a jerk for believing my wife’s master’s degree was a valid proxy for intelligence and critical thinking skills 😢