Regina v. Pollock - The Flying Helmet
Aug. 28th, 2012 12:04 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
avevale_intelligencerMr. Justice Terylene today addressed the jury at the Oxford Assizes, bringing to a conclusion what has become known as the Relativity Case.
THE JUDGE: Members of the jury, you face a remarkable and fateful choice. The defendant Egbert Pollock is charged that he did, on Tuesday last, in a fit of exuberance and high spirits, detach the helmet from the head of Constable Boot, and proceed to run away with it down the High Street, holding the aforesaid item of headgear in front of him and uttering loud cries. The Crown has brought numerous witnesses to the act who have testified that this is, in fact, what took place, including Constable Boot himself, who suffered a painful contusion due to the forcible disengagement of the chin-strap.
The man Pollock, who I gather to be one of those detestable individuals who devote their efforts to the fomentation of revolutionary and disruptive ideas through the medium of the written word, claims that the case was in fact quite otherwise; that the helmet, impelled by some mysterious force of which he knows naught, leapt from the worthy constable's occiput and deposited itself in his hands, whereupon it dragged him down the street despite his earnest and spirited efforts to restrain it and indeed return it to its owner. The loud cries to which the witnesses have alluded he characterises as his attempts to remonstrate with the volatile artifact. Sir Fennimore Cloud, for the defence, has dwelt on the defendant's supposedly sincere sympathy for Constable Boot, a man grievously wronged by the impersonal forces of nature, while vigorously denying any and all personal responsibility on Mr. Pollock's part for the assault, theft and injury occasioned to that gallant officer.
To substantiate this startling claim, you have also heard from numerous expert witnesses of the scientific persuasion, who have maintained that according to the laws of physics as currently understood, it is equally true to say "Mr Pollock ran away with the helmet" as it is to say "the helmet ran away with Mr Pollock." Sir Fennimore has cogently and tellingly argued that the laws of physics, being an immutable part of the natural world, must underpin and govern the operation of mere human laws, made and modified by human whim and fashion; and that, since it is therefore not possible to ascertain beyond reasonable doubt whether Mr Pollock or the helmet is guilty of the crime, the case must be dismissed.
Sir Basil Dundridge, for the Crown, made the point in his summing-up that prior circumstances and environmental factors, such as the state of mind of the defendant, the number of glasses of port he had consumed earlier in the evening, the previous behaviour of the helmet, and so on, militated towards the notion of guilt. To which Sir Fennimore responded, with much reference to his notes, that none of that was of the slightest relevance in establishing the scientific fact of which object moved, that scientific truth was the only real truth, and that therefore human law must not be swayed by mere ephemeral external factors but must focus on the relevant facts. Or rather, he went on, in this case, the lack of them.
I may as well tell you, since you are eagerly waiting with the patience of wax dummies for any glimmer of light that I may shed on this confusion, that I do not share this opinion. The key to the mystery lies in that pregnant phrase "as currently understood." A moment's perusal of any popular history of scientific discovery, such as I have given to Professor Bristow's lucid and well-reasoned work Science For Tiny Tots, will show that, unlike the legal system of this country, which moves slowly if at all and only under the impulsion of overwhelming precedent, the laws of physics are positively mercurial in their mutability. Only a few decades ago, scientists believed in an invisible and all-pervading substance called "the luminiferous aether" by which light was allowed to travel through space; while just this year it was discovered that there is an invisible and all-pervading substance called "the Higgs field," by which objects are endowed with mass. In the intervening period, neither of these things were believed to exist, and yet the world went on quite happily, much as it always had. Science proceeds by fantastical and catastrophic leaps and bounds, now this way, now that, entire bodies of knowledge being overturned and abolished overnight by the action of one man with an imagination and a notebook. I invite you to consider the chaos and devastation that would result if the framers of this country's laws were to behave in similar fashion.
I should also ask you to consider the potential effect on future jurisprudence of such a precedent should it be set. If any criminal may plead in his defence that he was merely the helpless puppet of impersonal universal forces, then Her Majesty's Justices shall indeed be reduced to a sorry state; for no conviction will be possible on any ground, the dignity of human free will (on which all our conceptions of culpability and innocence are founded) will be reduced to a fable, and good policemen such as Constable Boot will be turned out of work, forcing them very probably to turn to crime themselves. The arguments I have heard today have convinced me that scientific truth, as represented by the principles outlined here, has as much relation to reality as a little boy crawling under the bedclothes, imagining that the rest of the world has gone away and declaring himself king of the small and stuffy empire that remains. It leaves out too much that is important. I am told that these notions have been of considerable use in various scientific fields, and I do not doubt it; but if science is to be based on such flimsy and factitious principles, then its practitioners have no cause to complain if other men believe them to be unrealistic dreamers, pursuing a poetic fancy like the young man who tells his sweetheart that his world revolves around her. The truth is far otherwise; and so it is here.
I said that you faced a remarkable and fateful choice; and I now remove from your weary shoulders the burden of that choice by directing you to find the defendant Guilty. If it makes him feel better, he may reflect on the mysterious forces which will shortly cause the sum of five pounds to detach itself from his wallet, assuming he possesses such an item, and fly into the welcoming arms of the Court Treasurer. You may now, if you think it worth while, allow the universe to move you into another room to consider.
The court rose.
THE JUDGE: Members of the jury, you face a remarkable and fateful choice. The defendant Egbert Pollock is charged that he did, on Tuesday last, in a fit of exuberance and high spirits, detach the helmet from the head of Constable Boot, and proceed to run away with it down the High Street, holding the aforesaid item of headgear in front of him and uttering loud cries. The Crown has brought numerous witnesses to the act who have testified that this is, in fact, what took place, including Constable Boot himself, who suffered a painful contusion due to the forcible disengagement of the chin-strap.
The man Pollock, who I gather to be one of those detestable individuals who devote their efforts to the fomentation of revolutionary and disruptive ideas through the medium of the written word, claims that the case was in fact quite otherwise; that the helmet, impelled by some mysterious force of which he knows naught, leapt from the worthy constable's occiput and deposited itself in his hands, whereupon it dragged him down the street despite his earnest and spirited efforts to restrain it and indeed return it to its owner. The loud cries to which the witnesses have alluded he characterises as his attempts to remonstrate with the volatile artifact. Sir Fennimore Cloud, for the defence, has dwelt on the defendant's supposedly sincere sympathy for Constable Boot, a man grievously wronged by the impersonal forces of nature, while vigorously denying any and all personal responsibility on Mr. Pollock's part for the assault, theft and injury occasioned to that gallant officer.
To substantiate this startling claim, you have also heard from numerous expert witnesses of the scientific persuasion, who have maintained that according to the laws of physics as currently understood, it is equally true to say "Mr Pollock ran away with the helmet" as it is to say "the helmet ran away with Mr Pollock." Sir Fennimore has cogently and tellingly argued that the laws of physics, being an immutable part of the natural world, must underpin and govern the operation of mere human laws, made and modified by human whim and fashion; and that, since it is therefore not possible to ascertain beyond reasonable doubt whether Mr Pollock or the helmet is guilty of the crime, the case must be dismissed.
Sir Basil Dundridge, for the Crown, made the point in his summing-up that prior circumstances and environmental factors, such as the state of mind of the defendant, the number of glasses of port he had consumed earlier in the evening, the previous behaviour of the helmet, and so on, militated towards the notion of guilt. To which Sir Fennimore responded, with much reference to his notes, that none of that was of the slightest relevance in establishing the scientific fact of which object moved, that scientific truth was the only real truth, and that therefore human law must not be swayed by mere ephemeral external factors but must focus on the relevant facts. Or rather, he went on, in this case, the lack of them.
I may as well tell you, since you are eagerly waiting with the patience of wax dummies for any glimmer of light that I may shed on this confusion, that I do not share this opinion. The key to the mystery lies in that pregnant phrase "as currently understood." A moment's perusal of any popular history of scientific discovery, such as I have given to Professor Bristow's lucid and well-reasoned work Science For Tiny Tots, will show that, unlike the legal system of this country, which moves slowly if at all and only under the impulsion of overwhelming precedent, the laws of physics are positively mercurial in their mutability. Only a few decades ago, scientists believed in an invisible and all-pervading substance called "the luminiferous aether" by which light was allowed to travel through space; while just this year it was discovered that there is an invisible and all-pervading substance called "the Higgs field," by which objects are endowed with mass. In the intervening period, neither of these things were believed to exist, and yet the world went on quite happily, much as it always had. Science proceeds by fantastical and catastrophic leaps and bounds, now this way, now that, entire bodies of knowledge being overturned and abolished overnight by the action of one man with an imagination and a notebook. I invite you to consider the chaos and devastation that would result if the framers of this country's laws were to behave in similar fashion.
I should also ask you to consider the potential effect on future jurisprudence of such a precedent should it be set. If any criminal may plead in his defence that he was merely the helpless puppet of impersonal universal forces, then Her Majesty's Justices shall indeed be reduced to a sorry state; for no conviction will be possible on any ground, the dignity of human free will (on which all our conceptions of culpability and innocence are founded) will be reduced to a fable, and good policemen such as Constable Boot will be turned out of work, forcing them very probably to turn to crime themselves. The arguments I have heard today have convinced me that scientific truth, as represented by the principles outlined here, has as much relation to reality as a little boy crawling under the bedclothes, imagining that the rest of the world has gone away and declaring himself king of the small and stuffy empire that remains. It leaves out too much that is important. I am told that these notions have been of considerable use in various scientific fields, and I do not doubt it; but if science is to be based on such flimsy and factitious principles, then its practitioners have no cause to complain if other men believe them to be unrealistic dreamers, pursuing a poetic fancy like the young man who tells his sweetheart that his world revolves around her. The truth is far otherwise; and so it is here.
I said that you faced a remarkable and fateful choice; and I now remove from your weary shoulders the burden of that choice by directing you to find the defendant Guilty. If it makes him feel better, he may reflect on the mysterious forces which will shortly cause the sum of five pounds to detach itself from his wallet, assuming he possesses such an item, and fly into the welcoming arms of the Court Treasurer. You may now, if you think it worth while, allow the universe to move you into another room to consider.
The court rose.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-08-30 09:55 am (UTC)I think that the randomness inherent in Quantum theories give us the possibilty of free will (though I am uncertain on the point). Of course, if Einstein was right, and Quantum actually only appears random, and there is a mechanistic, predictable, set of laws underlying the Laws of Quantum, then we are probably back to no free will again.
I also note that some branches of Psychology (not a field I pay much attention too, I admit, I prefer my sciences to be scientific, not speculative) also seem to be arguing away from the idea that humans have free will, but I may be misunderstanding/misrepresenting their viewpoint.
Allan Doodes
no subject
Date: 2012-08-30 10:21 am (UTC)I'm aware of the argument and that it hasn't gone away. For myself, I don't think quantum helps much; my own (highly unscientific) feeling is that consciousness, and therefore free will, is part of a different order of phenomena, that brain chemistry might possibly be an effect or a concomitant rather than a cause of human thought (or indeed animal or vegetable thought) and that it's therefore not subject to what will be found to be, in the end, a fairly mechanistic set of physical laws that govern the material universe, and are just more complicated than we imagine at the moment. The brain is the knothole through which mind looks at matter.
This may already have been disproved, or may not be susceptible to proof or disproof at the moment. It is just a feeling. Whether psychology is science or speculation I'm not prepared to say; some here would, I think, disagree with you on that. I do know that every time we've thought we understood this cosmos something has come along to show us that there is more to it than we thought, and I'm confident that that will happen again and look forward to finding out about it.
In the meantime, as an A P Herbert pastiche, I think this actually worked fairly well.
no subject
Date: 2012-08-31 11:46 am (UTC)Certainly, the laws of chemistry are not the whole story about the mind, any more than the physiology of an ant is the whole story of how a ant colony operates. But how long that story will take to elucidate ... as I say, I'm not holding my breath.
As a A P Herbert pastiche, it certainly does work. And I remember the TV series (or, at least bits of it) fondly and would dearly love to see it screened again.
Allan Doodes (MUST remember to add my name everytime)
no subject
Date: 2012-09-02 11:44 am (UTC)That is true. The first is false. The alternative is unspeakable. And if I have to invent an entire other realm of being, in which "we" live and from which "we" interact with the physical world through the medium of our bodies and brains, to make it true, then so be it, because that answers a lot of other problem questions for me as well.
And if I had a hundred quid for every time a clear-eyed, hard-headed apostle of uncompromising realism, materialism and logic has said to me "science says we don't have free will, but it's useful to pretend that we do," I could put up a big billboard somewhere saying "Make your [insert emphasis here] minds up." :)
no subject
Date: 2012-08-30 08:53 pm (UTC)I wonder if there is or will ever be a fan-fic sight for the MISLEADING CASES?
no subject
Date: 2012-08-31 03:05 am (UTC)I'd love to see the telly series one day, but I suppose it all got wiped...