Citation

Sesardic N. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2011; 40(3): 592-596.

Affiliation

Department of Philosophy, Lingnan University, Tuen Mun, NT, Hong Kong. sesardic@ln.edu.hk.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2011, International Epidemiological Association, Publisher Oxford University Press)

DOI

10.1093/ije/dyq145

PMID

21807644

Abstract

Consider a conflict between the following two accounts of the Kennedy assassination: (i) the Oswald theory (that John F. Kennedy was killed by a man named Oswald, who was born in New Orleans to those particular parents), and (ii) the conspiracy theory (that the whole thing was planned and carried out by the CIA and other government agencies). Now imagine counterfactually that, despite all the plausible evidence accumulated over the years and pointing to Lee Harvey Oswald as the culprit, it is eventually proved that he was not in Dallas at all on that fateful day and that the assassin was in fact his elder brother, Robert Oswald, Jr. Notice that the Oswald theory, the way it was described above, would strictly speaking still be true even under the new circumstances (because it only claimed that ‘Kennedy was killed by a man named Oswald, who was born in New Orleans to those particular parents’). Nevertheless, is it not quite clear that we would all think that those who had defended the Oswald theory in the past were badly off the mark and that they surely have some serious re-examining to do?

Something similar has actually happened in the nature–nurture controversy and yet, somewhat surprisingly, not much re-examining has been done.

Language: en