Interesting article.
I found this quote raising thoughts in my mind:
In this country, we still
believe that all people are innocent until solid, reliable evidence from our legal
authorities proves otherwise."
That's true when it comes to legal punishment.
But citizens are entitled as individuals or groups to act on less than what would be sufficient evidence to convict. For example, if a day care is accused of hiring workers who abuse children, parents are perfectly entitled to withdraw their children on the basis of that suspicion without waiting for legal proof. If a car dealer gets a reputation for shoddy workmanship, citizens are entitled to use that as a sufficient basis to go elsewhere.
Likewise, if citizens believe there is enough evidence that radical Isamics were responsible for 9-11, we are entitled in our own lives to say and act as we please (legally, of course) without waiting for legal proof. Teachers are entitled to teach as a theory, and maybe as a fact, that radical Islamics did the deed.
What is the difference between theory and fact in terms of historical fact? That question always intrigues me. All we know of history beyond that which we have witnessed with our own eyes is really theory in one sense. We look at the sources, and we decide whether they are convincing enough to make something a fact. Is it, for example, a fact that Washington was our first President? I wasn't there. I have to rely on reports of other people. What if they are all lying, or are all mistaken? (In fact, I understand that Washington was NOT the first person to act as President -- his VP, John Adams, was officially inaugurated before Washington, so was legally the acting President between his and Washington's inauguration.)
Personally, I feel that I have more confidence that fundamental Islamics carried out the 9-11 attacks than I have in many other "facts" I was expected in school to accept as true. |
