What tribal societies can tell us about justice and liberty

[jmm99]

What Dayuhan and Wilf said. And, what I tell clients - the facts (truth) are what the judge or jury thinks they are. All I can do is present what I think are the facts (truth to my client and me). Also, I would bet that if all eyewitnesses to any incident are interviewed, there will be at least two different versions.

Now, I'll go along with this:

from RRS
The only reason why I do investigations is because repeatable and knowable facts exist and they are beautiful and powerful. Such facts are truth in my view. At the very least, they are the closest thing on earth to the Platonic notion of truth.

but subject to some other principles based on my beliefs concerning the reality in which we live: probabilistic (vs deterministic) outcomes; fuzzy logic and calculus (patterns that are not clear on the edges); chance, chaos and uncertainty principles drive events and what results from events; and some more that I could add with more thought.

Rhonda, I'll look at the legal memo and get back (possibly by PM cuz the focus of this thread should be on the Diamond article and your people's reports, not the law of the case).

Regards

Mike

[marct]

Hey Mike,

Rhonda, I'll look at the legal memo and get back (possibly by PM cuz the focus of this thread should be on the Diamond article and your people's reports, not the law of the case).

Oh, I think that your responses are on point ! More clearly stated, the entire legal case surrounds issues of epistemology and ethics in the publication and use "narratives". I would say that that is very much to the broader point, which is what can we learn from tribal societies and, by implication, how do we learn it.

Cheers,

Marc

[jmm99]

Looks like 150+ pages to look through - it might be interesting.

My concerns (besides the accuracy via "fact checking" of more formal documents used by our troops - e.g., RAND monographs, etc.) also were with (what I suspect) might be a much less formal process used in the field in non-secure areas - as to which, MikeF and Schmelap have had more recent experience. What do they (if they are still reading this) suggest re: "fact checking" of folks who give them narratives and of those folks' informants ?

Regards

Mike

[RhondaRShearer]

Even in the famed movie Rashomon where 4 defendants all had different viewpoints about a woman's murder in Japan--they all shared one fact. One woman's dead body. That is a verifiable fact. Facts do exist.

Prediction of certain facts are possible too. Step front and center in front of van moving 60mph and that will be another fact .

In my research I focus on such facts--hence why I first looked to find Isum in the remote bush as Diamond said he was paralyzed from a "cut" spine and in a wheelchair for 11 years (an implausible claim IMO). He wasn't. We knew hospital records would give a more complete verification-- which we then obtained.

The way witness statements are collected and who the witnesses are also makes a difference. For example if the supposed victims of "genocide" tell you such a claim is untrue, along with the supposed perpetrators, it's rather persuasive especially when everyone's story lines are basically the same.

In Papua New Guinea, accurate tribal history telling--especially about conflicts--is important. In the Wola area of the Southern Highlands Papua New Guinea such histories equal agreements consisting of what happened and who did what to who. Deviations from such agreed upon histories are easily viewed as attacks or betrayals of peace agreements.

Likely because of this, both sides of the 2 Kina fight and the neutral parties all had remarkably similar tellings of the conflict of 1993.

It was also striking that the Handas would simply acknowledge fault and say flat out with no guile (and without the excuses, hemming and hawing that would invariably occur here) that our guy started the fight and the trouble! I asked anthropologists who work in PNG and they are not surprised by this at all.

With that said, our informants testimonies were able to be cross referenced between memories and documents. If someone said "we remember the fight started when so and so child was born" --we would find the birth record of the child to check and see if it agreed.

[Dayuhan]

Facts do exist.

Yes, they do, and some can be adequately verified, just as some others may always be in doubt. It's rare, though, that we can assemble facts into a coherent narrative without treading in more subjective territory. Opportunities for distortion abound. Sometimes it's intentional: direct self-interest, an ideological agenda, a reporter or editor's desire for a salable story. It may be less intentional: an ideological, sentimental, or culturally driven predisposition to perceive facts and connections in certain ways. Distortion may be pure accident at times.

It's also entirely possible (and common) to assemble a grotesquely distorted narrative from impeccably verified facts, something generally accomplished by cherrypicking facts and pulling them out of context. That works particularly well in video presentations, where shots can be slammed together in MTV-style edits culminating in a breathless announcement that everything you've seen is absolute verified fact. Guess we could call that the Michael Moore syndrome.

You're a journalist, Mike's a lawyer, Marc's an anthropologist, I'm just a guy who's done this and that here and there and come away with a perhaps excessively cynical view of certainty. We all have our own ideas about what constitutes fact or truth, and of course as Mike points out you're in the issue and the rest of us are curious onlookers. All of that has an impact on the way we perceive and discuss. Not all bad to have an injection of idealism, though, not the most common commodity around here

[William F. Owen]

I have been in Egypt at least 30 times the past 10 years and am working on finishing a book on the true story of the crash of EgyptAir Flight 990, Oct 31 1999. If you recall its the fatal accident off the Atlantic coast of the US where the first officer was accused by NTSB of downing the plane while committing suicide.

Did the report explicitly say suicide, or just the actions were cause by his handling of the aircraft?

Facts do exist.

Well according to many Egyptians, it is a fact, that the British Royal Family murdered Princess Diana. Evidence and proof are not concepts universally accepted.

Prediction of certain facts are possible too. Step front and center in front of van moving 60mph and that will be another fact

Only because you can demonstrate it and repeat it, and even then the outcome is not a certainty.

[RhondaRShearer]

@William F. Owen,
You write, "Did the report explicitly say suicide, or just the actions were cause by his handling of the aircraft?"

NTSB made an embarrassing error and quickly announced to the press that it was suicide after a bad translation of the cockpit voice recording (CVR). After retracting this mistake, the NTSB tried their best--and failed--during the entire investigation to prove it was true.

They ended up in the final report to state that (I paraphrase) that it was the copilot's inputs into the first officer's column that by intent or accident caused the crash.

This statement has the false appearance of objectively and rigor. One assumes that the flight data recording measured these inputs and that their statement is objective and factual --not an opinion. However, even industry experts often fail to know that in this particular model of the Boeing 767 does not include recording data from the columns! NTSB has no idea what inputs were made that fatal day. It is pure speculation.

Besides all this is moot. Boeing's insurers recently settled and made pay-outs to Egyptian crew members and passengers of the doomed EA 990 flight. Needless to say perhaps but Boeing and insurers don't want the true story to come out that the plane's bell crank bolts in the tail went into failure causing the split in the flaps (one side up the other down), not a manual struggle where one pilot fought to pull up while the co-pilot was fighting to push down. I heard the cockpit voice recording (CVR) firsthand. There was no fight.

This is about Boeing sales and stock prices and maintaining American financial interests IMO. It is so much cheaper and easier to blame the pilot --especially if they are Muslim.

Regarding Facts. Yes some people here and in Egypt, do cite "facts" when what they have cited are, in fact, opinions. This is a common confusion and error.

You also write a response to my statement -"Prediction of certain facts are possible too. Step front and center in front of van moving 60mph and that will be another fact." You state: "Only because you can demonstrate it and repeat it, and even then the outcome is not a certainty."

I carefully worded my statement --"front and center" of van moving at 60 mph. The details may not be a certainty but stepping front and center of a van moving 60 miles a hour would be no doubt prove fatal in every trial. The laws of physics that are predictable and measurable in this Newtonian example. Bone, tissue and organs can only take so much force before damage. There are "rupture stress" numbers for all sorts of tissue types and materials where one can accurately calculate and predict with scientific certainly at what speed certain tissue/materiel will get damaged.

If facts were so unreliable and unpredictable as you and others may be suggesting here, science and technology as we know it would be impossible.

[Ken White]

If facts were so unreliable and unpredictable as you and others may be suggesting here, science and technology as we know it would be impossible.

but can be manipulated and seen or interpreted differently by various observers, usually perspective dependent.

People, OTOH, are pretty much unreliable and unpredictable...

[Steve Blair]

Everything is subject to human interpretation, and thus human manipulation and error. Anyone who studies history at a deeper level than the last History Channel special soon begins to understand and appreciate this.

[Dayuhan]

Everything is subject to human interpretation, and thus human manipulation and error.

True, and I think in this age of the conspiracy theory we often underestimate the impact of error. Personally, given a choice between conspiracy and ####up I'll default to ####up almost every time, unless the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. What's the rule... never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity?

That rule has some relevance to the case Rhonda was discussing earlier. It is to me at least superficially plausible that NTSB could make a premature announcement based on a faulty translation and then try to cover their ass. The contention that

This is about Boeing sales and stock prices and maintaining American financial interests

is a bit harder to sustain, for the following reasons:

1. High probability of exposure. The number of people involved in these investigations is enormous, and too many people would have to know that the game was being fixed. Very hard to keep a secret at that level.

2. Extremely high penalty for exposure. If NTSB were caught covering up a mechanical failure on behalf of Boeing the consequences for both the agency and the company would far exceed the consequences of simply admitting mechanical failure.

3. Low necessity. Looking at previous examples where the company was clearly at fault (eg Japan Airlines flight 123) there's nothing to suggest that the impact of a single crash due to mechanical failure would be catastrophic to BA sales or share price.

Any company in that industry has a procedure for dealing with crashes, and the normal attitude is to eat it and move on. Unless there was something really extraordinarily damning about this case it's hard to see why a coverup would be necessary.

Or possibly I am ideologically predisposed (assuming that the investigation was compromised, which I don't know to be the case) to think a bureaucratic ####up and a scramble to cover is a more likely scenario than an organized conspiracy to protect a company... or perhaps Rhonda has the opposite predisposition, or both. Even where data are consistent and unquestioned, the narratives we frame from data will invariably reflect our experience and prejudices.

[marct]

Hi Rhonda,

If facts were so unreliable and unpredictable as you and others may be suggesting here, science and technology as we know it would be impossible.

Just a couple of quick notes on this point.

First, Newtonian (and most other "natural laws") are based on a Baconian understanding of science, i.e. a probabilistic stance. All this means is that the results are not 100% certain, although they may be 99.99999% based on previous observations. The reliability of a process is the latter number.

Second, "facts" should be distinguished between observations and processes. Individual observations may be categorized using a crisp set typology - "Did it (the event) happen? Yes / No" - while processes require a more subtle question - "Did it (the process as we predicted) happen in this case? Yes / No / Maybe".

Third, the English word "fact" comes from the Latin "factum"; "made" or "constructed". "Facts" are constructed by our consciousness by a process of abstraction of sensory input from objective reality and always include a component of limited understanding. As our understanding, our models of objective reality and the languages (including mathematics) that we use to describe these models alter, so does their predictive validity. You mentioned Newtonian Laws; well, don't forget that they start to break down at ~.3C.

Fourth, "facts", in the sense of individual observations, can and should be used to establish both plausibilities and probabilities (they tend to be asserted in some other systems). It all depends on which logical system(s) a science is using in any particular case, and there are often problems with confusing systems of logic, what "facts" should be associated with each, and how those "facts" may/can/should be used.

This may sound like I'm picking on you, but there are some pretty serious, real world implications. For example, if we assume a (nomonological-)deductive logic system that states, as a fact, that insurgencies arise from poor governance, then counter-insurgency operations will focus their efforts on building governance structures. If we assume an inductive (probabilistic) logical system that states that governance is a factor in insurgencies, then the emphasis will be different. BTW, I chose this example in particular because it related back to the article I linked from your site initially.

Cheers,

Marc

[jmm99]

by mentioning "good governance". We'll soon be joined by COL Bob Jones who will explain his theories of "good governance" in terms of "a (nomonological-)deductive logic system", and in terms of "an inductive (probabilistic) logical system", to boot. At which point, this country lawyer will really be lost in the fog of words.

Some points in this discussion exemplify the problem of expressing "facts" in words. I thought Rhonda was doing pretty well with her 60 mph van until this:

from RRS
The details may not be a certainty but stepping front and center of a van moving 60 miles a hour would be no doubt prove fatal in every trial.

The problem is with "every". People have survived direct hits from motor vehicles traveling 60 mph or more; just as people have survived free falls from thousands of feet. Those are admittedly outliers, but they do exist. So, "almost every" is more precise wording in that particular case.

Now, excuse me while I go and look up "nomonological-deduction".

Regards

Mike

[marct]

Hey Mike,

by mentioning "good governance". We'll soon be joined by COL Bob Jones who will explain his theories of "good governance" in terms of "a (nomonological-)deductive logic system", and in terms of "an inductive (probabilistic) logical system", to boot. At which point, this country lawyer will really be lost in the fog of words.

LOL - okay, okay!

Some points in this discussion exemplify the problem of expressing "facts" in words. I thought Rhonda was doing pretty well with her 60 mph van until this:

....

The problem is with "every". People have survived direct hits from motor vehicles traveling 60 mph or more; just as people have survived free falls from thousands of feet. Those are admittedly outliers, but they do exist. So, "almost every" is more precise wording in that particular case.

Yup, that's it exactly. "Outliers" is a nice synonym for those nasty facts that disprove ones "perfect" theory, since they both lie outside of what is predicted and, therefore, are liars (to quote an old sociology prof of mine)

Now, excuse me while I go and look up "nomonological-deduction".

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Deductive-nomological_model (I use the older version of the name ).

[William F. Owen]

Needless to say perhaps but Boeing and insurers don't want the true story to come out that the plane's bell crank bolts in the tail went into failure causing the split in the flaps (one side up the other down), not a manual struggle where one pilot fought to pull up while the co-pilot was fighting to push down.

Interesting.
Do you mean elevators and not flaps? If a control run fails, elevators normally reverts to neutral, and they would really have to have jammed very hard to remain displaced, once the dive began.
What about the auto-pilot disconnect? If that was a trip out, why didn't the Co-pilot just engage it again. Are you saying the failure caused the disconnect?
...and pulling back on the throttles?

[slapout9]

Interesting stuff hear.......anybody ever looked at Thorstein Veblen? and his Anthropology based Economic Theory?

[marct]

Hey Slap,

Interesting stuff hear.......anybody ever looked at Thorstein Veblen? and his Anthropology based Economic Theory?

Theory of the Leisure class stuff? Yup. Actually, economics and Anthropology have a lot of crosses over the past 100 or so years (and I had to read too much of it! ).

[RhondaRShearer]

Rhonda, I'll look at the legal memo and get back (possibly by PM cuz the focus of this thread should be on the Diamond article and your people's reports, not the law of the case).

Thank you, Mike.

-Rhonda