3 ms·

Let’s say that you are convicted as a criminal, and allegedly you were in a certain location and committed the crime. If you were not there and didn’t not comm

Let’s say that you are convicted as a criminal, and allegedly you were in a certain location and committed the crime. If you were not there and didn’t not commit the crime, is that past to which used to determine your conviction factual? Whether later you are proven not guilty, the past didn’t change, but rather our perception of it.

karpierz 4y ago
You're begging the question. You started with: assume there is a factual past of where you were. And then argued: there is a factual past. I'm not enough of a skeptic to say "don't trust the models of the past"; memory turns out to be a pretty good model. So does carbon dating. But the reason you say "you were not there and did not commit the crime" is because you don't remember being there. Maybe you even remember being elsewhere. But that doesn't mean it's true, memory is fallible. You might say that you even have photos of yourself somewhere else at the time. But if there were photos of you at the crime scene, would that change what the past was? Maybe your memory is shoddy, or maybe the photos are fake.