Post with the most interesting/compelling/insightful part of your response that you formed in class. Please comment/constructively critique another response as well.
". . . and we can't trust their recollection of events because any ounce of truth that may have resided in their statements has now been warped by their personal feelings as well as their need to get the reader to see their side of the story."
Cultural division seems to be a major enemy of eyewitness accounts. Humans set up their own cultures, which divide them from being the human race as a whole. When two cultures clash in the human world, people tend to be leaning towards their culture only, sometimes to the point where they appear as radicals. This creates two different viewpoints on a historical event, meaning eyewitness accounts have bias.
I agree with Patrick in that eyewitness accounts can be highly biased due to religious or even ethical reasons. Someone who may be against a certain event happening might exaggerate the extent of the complete truth. Although eyewitness might sound like the only reasonable form of knowing whether something happened or not, each person literally/ figuratively sees through their own eyes. They see what they want to see and might disregard mentioning things that are actually important.
2. The Witness : This is what the witness perceives from their reality. It introduces a level of flaw because the witness is not physically able to pick up on everything from the event. Also their thoughts about what is happening may affect how they encode the memory into their brains.
3. The Account : Unless the account happens simultaneously with the witness, the account can leave out some things. It also can be afdected by the witness' perception of the event.
Yes, eyewitness accounts are important, but the question to raise is arw they reliable?
Eyewitnesses are Very important. I agree with Durrell. Eyewitnesses, although potentially biased are very important for solving cases, writing history, etc. In the context of history, eyewitnesses as previously mentioned can alter information to coincide with their preconceived notions. However, to avoid mistakes or bias in history, the eyewitness has to report objectively, not subjectively and therefore not accounting their opinions.
". . . and we can't trust their recollection of events because any ounce of truth that may have resided in their statements has now been warped by their personal feelings as well as their need to get the reader to see their side of the story."
ReplyDeleteCultural division seems to be a major enemy of eyewitness accounts. Humans set up their own cultures, which divide them from being the human race as a whole. When two cultures clash in the human world, people tend to be leaning towards their culture only, sometimes to the point where they appear as radicals. This creates two different viewpoints on a historical event, meaning eyewitness accounts have bias.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Patrick in that eyewitness accounts can be highly biased due to religious or even ethical reasons. Someone who may be against a certain event happening might exaggerate the extent of the complete truth. Although eyewitness might sound like the only reasonable form of knowing whether something happened or not, each person literally/ figuratively sees through their own eyes. They see what they want to see and might disregard mentioning things that are actually important.
ReplyDeleteThere are three parts to the process:
ReplyDelete1. The reality : this is what actually happened
2. The Witness : This is what the witness perceives from their reality. It introduces a level of flaw because the witness is not physically able to pick up on everything from the event. Also their thoughts about what is happening may affect how they encode the memory into their brains.
3. The Account : Unless the account happens simultaneously with the witness, the account can leave out some things. It also can be afdected by the witness' perception of the event.
Yes, eyewitness accounts are important, but the question to raise is arw they reliable?
Eyewitnesses are Very important. I agree with Durrell. Eyewitnesses, although potentially biased are very important for solving cases, writing history, etc. In the context of history, eyewitnesses as previously mentioned can alter information to coincide with their preconceived notions. However, to avoid mistakes or bias in history, the eyewitness has to report objectively, not subjectively and therefore not accounting their opinions.
ReplyDelete