"advanced technology gives conclusive evidence of the past''? discuss.?
Answers:
I believe this is a true statement . to the extent that we can have "conclusive" knowledge about anything.
The legal world uses the expression "beyond a reasonable doubt" as a standard. I.e. it recognizes that absolutely *nothing* can ever be considered *absolutely* true, but some things are considered true to the extent that reasonable people will agree. The same is true in science.
For example, did space-capsule Gemini V carrying two astronauts splash down in the Atlantic on August 29, 1965? History tells us this happened, and we have video tapes and records of the event . what most people would consider to be "conclusive evidence" of the event. However, it is also remotely *possible* that the videotapes were later fabrications, or the spacecraft was really empty. But only an unreasonable person would believe that anybody had motivation or ability to manipulate the technology to fabricate this evidence in this way and doubt the fact that the event occurred.
As another example, DNA analysis can be considered conclusive evidence that person A killed person B at some time in the past, or a camera at an intersection can be conclusive evidence that person A ran a red light at 5th and Mission last week. Person A (the accused) can question the reliability of that technology as evidence (just as they can the testimony of a witness), but at some point, that technology is considered by a jury or judge as "conclusive evidence" that said past event did indeed occur. At some point, the questioning of the reliability of the technology just falls into the range of "unreasonable doubt."
In other words, all technology can be manipulated. However, the theory that the technology was manipulated has to be backed up by some *reason* for somebody to do so. The more extraordinary the manipulation, the more extraordinary the reason has to be. For example, the belief that the recordings of the moon landings are NOT conclusive evidence that we actually landed on the moon, supposes an *enormous* manipulation of the technology (the creation of the video transmission, audio, radio transmissions, construction of the rocket for purposes of launch, the flight decks, the splashdown video, etc. etc. etc., plus the subsequent need for secrecy for anyone involved with any of this technology, for decades afterwards). And all of this not once, but 6 times! (Actually more than that, if you include the launches of all 17 Apollo missions.) An accusation of such an *enormous* manipulation of technology, requires an equally *enormous* motivation. (One-upping the Russians doesn't even come close.)
So, the answer is yes.
.
Yes, must be. Look how dark it is.
I have no idea what you're talking about, so I'll make something up.
Carbon dating is an advanced technology that can supply a date for organic materials. It can therefore be used to determine when, for example, the flax in a piece of cloth was grown. Carbon dating has been used to show, conclusively, that the Shroud of Turyn does not date back to the first century AD.
Are you referring to evidence of battery like electrical lighting in Egyptian pyramids?
Advanced technology gives more information about the past, the meaning of new information is still open to interpretation and can be misused.
The broader the picture and the more detailed the information, however, the lower the probability of the wool being pulled over the eyes of those with detailed knowledge and the smarts to evaluate any erroneous conclusions.
As these boards show, the number of people who have the knowledge and understanding to discuss most matters is much lower than most of the respondents imagine!
I suspect there is a 'critical mass' of knowledge and general intelligence below which individuals simply don't realise how ignorant they are. Once you are above this level (if that should ever happen), you KNOW how ignorant you are and the realisation that you didn't know before is both frightening and annoying at the same time.
The answers post by the user, for information only, UKQnA.com does not guarantee the right.