Evidence

I was a forensics student in college, accenting debate but participating in oratory as my related event.  Our coach, Dr. Clarence Nystrom wanted his team members to do more than debate only so we had choices of other events.  I liked them all, including impromptu and extemporaneous speaking in which the adjudicator of our ‘off-the-cuff’ speeches during three minutes would ask a question and the student would reply verbally as though speaking to an audience.  I remember well the poorest extemporaneous speech I ever evaluated when I became a forensics coach, and the roles were reversed for me.  The student from a leading university held forth for three minutes on the administration of Herbert Hoover as the Director of the F. B. I.  My critique was to suggest that the student check the professional lives of Herbert Hoover and J. Edgar Hoover to determine better the story of either life, and the experience of the nation following their contributions.  She gave a mixed report that did not commend her or the university she represented.  Her participation, like that of many students, was to gain effectiveness, perhaps belief (persuasion) in presentation without adequate concern about evidence and truth one is supposed to honor in speech/writing.

There are not many ways in which we may present evidence, and even then the evidence may be faulty – especially for statistics, a favored form of evidence.  Life is too complex and changing for us to gain perfect statistics about anything, or even good ones at moments of citing.  Were enough subjects used, were the methods standard to the field, and so on and so on?  About the best we can do in much of that which has to do with the intellectual treatment of thought and conduct is what is known as probability.  In dealing with probability we admit to our presuppositions, and then find evidence to support our presumption, remaining true to the rules of evidence.  I have, in my various approaches to evidence, a section that deals with negative evidence.  For example, I believe in the concept that there is a fault line in all human beings that theologians term to be depravity.  What has been left out or distorted in us?  That depravity shows itself in the sins we commit, large and small, represented often in the human race as faults – evolutionary developments, crime, anger, hatred and the list of violations of that which is good grows quite long.  Daily we are greeted with the news of murder, violence, thievery, and the multiple ways to violate society by members of society.  The length and breadth of the violations are so great, and occur so commonly in every society that we conclude that the truth of the matter is that mankind does have an inherited tendency called depravity (fault that is in our human nature) in religious terms even if medical, psychological, social terms are less forbidding to general acceptance of our nature.  (Human beings may accept what God does not.)  The appeal to unsocial, even self-depreciating behavior is so common, showing in so many ways, that there must be an inner force controlled if a holy God can admit human beings to his family.  Most persons gain some control, and may, in course, accept that as sufficient for decency – and it may be for human decency.  But that does not make it acceptable to perfect, holy God who is first concerned with repairing the human condition, and thereafter addresses the evidence of that condition for treatment or adjudication to some life-meaning conclusion.

Some students of human life are willing to say that mankind is flawed, but we need to get-over-it. Philip Wylie said science would get us out.  Robert Maynard Hutchins said we should read the Encyclopedia Britannica.  Several have suggested that we take a brisk walk every day.  This will not solve the atrocities of warfare, the overpowering influence of alcohol and drugs, the constant lure of sex and passion, the violation of children, murder of families, the distortions of human biology, the selfishness of the gifted and strong, the cheating, lies, evasions, omissions.  It doesn’t take long in reciting the ill characteristics of mankind before every hand is raised in admission, and the persons touched with some degree of guilt.  If not so touched the person is likely so far removed that persuasion will not serve effective purpose for recovery.  Judas was beyond the pale, but when the line was crossed, never to be crossed back, he threw down the betrayal coins, and took away his own life. We betray ourselves when we disregard him.