Just because we are uneducated “observers” doesn’t mean we are stupid.
If you give me an apple and an orange to “observe” and ask me to pick which is which I could probably do that without sophisticated theories and analysis of the chemical makeup of the fruit. In fact, I could do that without even tasting (testing) the fruit.
I never cease to be amazed at highly educated people arguing details before the “big picture” observations make sense. You’re trying to prove that orange on the right is an apple? Make sense out of the big picture for me and I’ll be happy to listen to your detailed arguments.
I was watching a video the other day of a physicist that gave an example of not being able to create order out of chaos and first he gave the big picture. He has been an educator for many years so I’m sure this helped in his ability to make sense of this subject without highly technical details. His big picture argument went something like this (modified to fit my hypothetical example):
An insurance company brings a civil suit against the owner of a high-rise building in Chicago claiming the building owner brought the building down with explosives instead of the building being destroyed by office fires as claimed by the owner.
Observable facts in the case:
Insurance and building owner attorneys agree that office fires were started on five floors and the boiler room with large amounts of kerosene and exploding a large fuel tank in the boiler room. They agree that the fires were started by a local street gang and the gang took recorded video of the collapsing (50) story building from a block away. The video shows the building collapse into its own footprint within seconds (free fall speed) looking strangely like a controlled demolition. This was a steel framed building and no record exist of office fires ever destroying a steel framed building.
The Insurance company argues that through the discovery process:
- They found Hi-Tech Military grade explosives in the dust.
- The owner took out a very large fire policy on the building (6) months prior to the total destruction of the building and the building was losing tenants and money.
- The video shows the building collapse within seconds with flames existing on only five floors.
- The owner removed the collapsed building (evidence) and dumped it in the ocean. This was in violation of laws concerning evidence at possible crime scenes.
The building owner argues:
- The Insurance company has a long history of fighting claims and either seeded the dust with the hi-tech explosive residue to avoid the large claim or the explosive residue in the dust was created from materials due to the office fires.
- No history exists for the free fall collapse of a steel frame building due to office fires but each fire is different and the magnitude of the fire that brought the building down is unprecedented. The fact that the street gang started the fires is not in dispute. The physics of such a big fire are “complicated.”
- The materials were removed and deposited in the ocean because city employees were instructed by the mayor to remove the materials immediately because they created a public health hazard for neighboring tenants. The mayor decided to ignore the fire department investigators when they wanted to explore for explosive residue, etc.
- Insurance adjusters were called to the scene and had access to the building materials before removal. They collected samples of the materials including the dust.
The building owner lawyers argued that the fires were so great it compromised the steel frame structure causing the collapse. The street gang causing the destruction killed the security guards. They argued that the chemical makeup of the dust samples were not conclusive because these same properties are found in various office components, sheet rock, and building materials. While the building was in compliance with code it could not withstand the damage caused by the street gang.
The insurance lawyers argued that free fall collapse of a building due to normal office fires defies known laws of physics including conservation of momentum and they proved free fall speed through videos (apple and orange observation above) and graphs. The owner lawyers acknowledged the free fall speed due to the video evidence. These observations prove (according to the Insurance Company) that the building was blown up and the fires did not create the collapse.
The insurance lawyers argued that they could not have contaminated the dust evidence. The dust evidence included unexploded remnants of explosives (later detonated in a lab environment). While their past dealings (history) with clients was allowed into evidence they did not have access to the hi-tech explosives. The explosives were so hi-tech they have only been created by a single military lab requiring top security clearance to enter the lab (let alone remove tons of the explosive material needed to pull the building into its own footprint). No private lab has the equipment or science to reproduce the explosive. In other words, they could “test and observe” the materials but they didn’t have the ability to create the materials and the materials are not available on the open market. Therefore, it was not possible to seed the dust with explosive residue because of extremely limited access to this hi-tech material.
Finally, the Insurance Company lawyers argued that order is not created out of chaos. While the building has components and chemicals found in the particular explosives it is not logical that explosive fragments could be created in the fire. For example, while match heads are readily available (and the materials are common) one would not expect to see match heads in the dust because they were “created” by the fire. If it is difficult to create a hi-tech explosive in a sophisticated lab we can’t expect nature to create it.
Knowing that you are not an expert, with only this evidence as a juror, which arguments would you find cogent or convincing?
