Questions, questions: We want more questions.

Neal Boortz discussed the efforts of the Florida Governor Bush in requesting yet more investigations in the Schiavo affair.

Last week Governor Bush ordered state law enforcement authorities to investigate just what happed fifteen years ago … the day that Terri Schiavo collapsed. There seems to be some issue as to just how long it took Michael Schiavo to call 911 after his wife collapsed. It matters not that medical personnel have testified that if Michael had waited any significant length of time at all Terri would not have survived. If the case can be made that Michael waited too long then the field will be open for all sorts of inferences that Michael actually was the reason that Terri collapsed and is, therefore, a real murderer after all! The big advantage here is that there is no imaginable way to determine just how long it took Michael Schiavo to call 911. Therefore there is little chance that the demonization of Michael Schiavo can be derailed by something pesky like an autopsy that showed no signs of abuse or neglect. It is hoped that this investigation will “leave more questions than it answers.” That way the hammering can continue.

This is the same kind of thing that Senate Democrats are doing with Ambassador Bolton and also with other executive branch nominees. The ‘Downing Street memo’ affair has it going from both sides – the impeach Bush side and the provenance of the documentation side.

There is never enough information. If what you do find out doesn’t support your ’cause’ then you need more information. You need secret and classified documents, you need secret FBI reports, you need more investigation. There are questions to answer. The more we learn the more we find there are additional questions to resolve.

With Schiavo, attacks on the competency of the autopsy are already starting. This is an effort to raise questions about the question solving process as a means to raise more questions.

Missing in much of this is any consideration of implications. How absurd a set of conditions must exist in order to for desired thesis to actually be true? As the research progresses, the absurdity can trend towards conspiracy to support the desired thesis if the facts do not.

There is a need for intellectual integrity in such research. What is a reasonable point to say enough is enough? How are questions weighed to determine if they are frivolous or significant? When is it time to realize that there are dimishing returns in the research and a decision must be made?

Comments are closed.