If an eyewitness remembers an event in a non-historical manner (ie, a digital camera recorded events differently than the eyewitness's recollection), how is that person's narrative experience impacted, if at all?
A corollary question to this one is: "Does the truth have any required connection with objective events, or can a subjective experience be defined as a 'true' event?" Under what circumstances is a subjective or narrative event real or true?
Scientists have biases that determine to some extent what can be observed. When looking to test a hypothesis (eg, presence of extraterrestrial life, the action of a particular biochemical substance on the organ systems of the body), the scientist must focus her/his attention, and this in turn determines what can or cannot be observed.
A telescope can be directed at only a tiny fraction of the sky in SETI research. Brain neurotransmitters are used throughout the body. How do we ascertain what the objective or true events are with regard to these examples?
How do we deal with the central problem of the impossibility of "proving" a negative event?
Hi Neil, loads of questions there, but I was drawn mainly to your second (corollary) question here: I think it's a very complex and tricky issue, and perhaps it is language that is playing tricks on us here. Can a subjective-narrative event without connection to an "objective event" be true? Well, I think yes and no. Is Santa Claus true or real? No, I think we'd agree he's not a real entity. But, I think we'd also agree that the shared narrative of Santa Claus has very real, powerful, far-reaching effects in the world. So in a sense Santa Claus is real and true because "his" effect on the world is far, far more significant than many things that we would say are real. For instance, he has more impact on the world than me - and I believe I am more "real" than him! But perhaps in terms of impact on behaviour, thoughts, feelings, relationships, and in terms of generating social and cultural responses more broadly, he is in fact more real than I am! I don't know if this really addresses your question, but this is what came to mind.
In my opinion this question touches on the theoy of constructivism and the questions of Interpretation like it is put down in an hermeneutic circle. Human memories are not reliable, because they change overtime due to feelings, but neither are interpretations of material that is recorded on media without taking a careful look at the circumstances.
Historical truth cannot exist in any objective way because any said implies many unsaid. You can look at the seminal work of Shahid Amin on how he had to put together many many reports of one event in Kashmir to be able suggest an inclusive narrative. That narrative was also constructed of imaginary, biases and some hints of fact. The 'historical truth' also was recorded by local media at the same time. Many scholars take the narrative as a given truth and try to analyse its exo-consistency and endo-consistency then one conclude the narrative makes sense or no. That is as much we can do more than it becomes detective work!
I research about self-referential and autobiographical visual narratives and the first thing to question is the possibility of any photography or image to capture the truth or reality. An image is just the caption of a point of view, and there are so many conventions related to visual culture that I don't really think that there could be a "pure" image without subjectivity or intentionality. So... I don't believe we can talk about truth, I just find narrative truth even in images.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Asia
- India