The Tunnel Vision.
The attitude investigaters show when systematically chosing that kind of evidence that will support the allready existing and "official" evidence or/and the so much wanted endconclusion and precludes any evidence to the contrary, because it is not looked upon as "credible" because it contradicts or doesn't fit in with existing evidence or the so much wanted endconclusion is called "The Tunnel Vision".
To say it in a slightly different way:
In case of "Tunnel Vision" the investigator wants to construct a consistent and logical case or reach a certain "reasonable" conclusion and that's the reason why he looks upon evidence to the contrary or evidence that doesn't fit in "consistently" or "logically" with the existing evidence as being "not credible".
Have any of you experienced such situations as investigator or as an object of investigation ?
Have any of you heard of such cases before, judicial or otherwise ?
EDIT: Only serious debaters, please.
Originally posted by ivanhoeWell of course. The obvious example is the religious debating we do here - one side or the other clearly has such vision as they do not agree on what is evidence for the existence of God.
The Tunnel Vision.
The attitude investigaters show when systematically chosing that kind of evidence that will support the allready existing and "official" evidence or/and the so much wanted endconclusion and precludes any evidence to ...[text shortened]... ave any of you heard of such cases before, judicial or otherwise ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeSo someone has tunnel vision if they make decisions you do not agree with?
My guess is that this "Tunnel Vision" played an integral part in Judges Greer's rulings.
I hope there will be an official investigation in the way he and other judges involved in the Terri Schiavo case made all of their decisions.
Originally posted by ivanhoeThis is exactly what an investigator of any kind should do. Here are the keywords you used:
The Tunnel Vision.
The attitude investigaters show when systematically chosing that kind of evidence that will support the allready existing and "official" evidence or/and the so much wanted endconclusion and precludes any evidence to the contrary, because it is not looked upon as "credible" because it contradicts or doesn't fit in with existing evi ...[text shortened]... ou heard of such cases before, judicial or otherwise ?
EDIT: Only serious debaters, please.
"reasonable" conclusion
"consistently"
"logically"
"not credible"
By NOT looking at evidence to the contrary or evidence that does NOT fit in consistently, the investigator is following a logical pattern. A pattern of facts that can be proven. The investigator is simply doing what makes the most sense.
How else would someone go about an investigation? You certainly can't look at every possible alternative. If that approach were used nothing would ever get resolved. Every investigation has to start with what we know to be true and can be proven.
Originally posted by wib
This is exactly what an investigator of any kind should do. Here are the keywords you used:
"reasonable" conclusion
"consistently"
"logically"
"not credible"
By NOT looking at evidence to the contrary or evidence that does NOT ...[text shortened]... o start with what we know to be true and can be proven.
The procedure you are describing is responsible for putting innocent people in jail.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI agree. That certainly happens. But it's the only way to catch the guilty ones too.
The procedure you are describing is responsible for putting innocent people in jail.
The problem is one of "alternatives" to investigation. There aren't any. We demand proof in our society of almost everything, but especially those things that involve passing judgement. Our legal system and the Constitution are set up specifically with "proof" in mind. So how do we get proof? First we must start with facts. Facts that have been proven or can be proven again. There's just no other way.
