Richard the Third

[MrGongGong]

I agree there is nothing wrong with scepticism; however there is a fine line between scepticism and a wilful disregard of the facts, .

Spot on there matey

(see Kipper stance on climate change for example........)

[Sir Velo]

A sceptic is merely one who tells the truth in an unpalatable form

Not a standard definition I think.

The OED defines a "sceptic" as one who is "inclined to doubt all accepted opinions; a cynic"; from the Greek root skepsis meaning "inquiry"; "doubt".

[scottycelt]

I have to say that having seen part of the C4 programme about it, I'm inclined to be rather more sceptical... A number of the individuals involved, especially a blond lady who emotes the whole time, seem to have too much invested in the whole thing, and to be a bit too smily to be entirely trustworthy. The thing also seems to be very orchestrated... 90 minute TV programme ready for broadcast the say of the announcement. There's some heavy PR involved.

The main archaeologist from the University - another Richard - is the encouraging factor: he too seems sceptical, and not a man to be hoodwinked. And yet he presented the finding at the press conference.

Nothing wrong with scepticism.

Yes, nothing wrong with well-founded scepticism in the absence of simple facts!

I watched this and that was my impression of the programme as well. The whole thing seemed heavily stage-managed which normally wouldn't have inspired much confidence in its veracity.

However, those involved have had months to put this together and presumably most of the facts have actually been known for some time but only released yesterday to coincide with the TV programme,

Teamsaint's mention of 'money' here has some ring of truth to it but, I cannot see how anyone can fail to be impressed by the evidence uncovered and the apparently painstaking methods of coming to what seems to be a perfectly sound and valid conclusion.

'The 'Devil's Advocate' case appeared to be employed at every stage in the process which is essential for any sort of credibility.

[Nick Armstrong]

True, scotty The programme if anything did them a disservice, but the findings underneath all that are I think credible...

[Pabmusic]

Not a standard definition I think.

The OED defines a "sceptic" as one who is "inclined to doubt all accepted opinions; a cynic"; from the Greek root skepsis meaning "inquiry"; "doubt".

I think there is a modern sense of 'keeping an open mind until sufficient proof is available'. I'd not use it as a synonym for cynical.

[Edit] Oxford Dictionaries Online gives "a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions', which is certainly how I'd understand it - it's the questioning of accepted ideas that's most notable.

[gurnemanz]

I think I made quite an early start as a sceptic. My parents were churchgoers and as children we would be taken along. The services baffled me (and still do) and I can clearly remember sitting there thinking: What if all these people have got it wrong?

[teamsaint]

I think I made quite an early start as a sceptic. My parents were churchgoers and as children we would be taken along. The services baffled me (and still do) and I can clearly remember sitting there thinking: What if all these people have got it wrong?

Absolutely, Gurney. Choose the wrong denomination and you are in big trouble.

[Pabmusic]

I think I made quite an early start as a sceptic. My parents were churchgoers and as children we would be taken along. The services baffled me (and still do) and I can clearly remember sitting there thinking: What if all these people have got it wrong?

Ho! Me too - my parents weren't churchgoers, but would have called themselves Christians (because 'Christianity' to them meant 'being nice to one another') and I can recall raising exactly this point when I was perhaps eight or nine. I'm rather proud to recall that they talked seriously about it and encouraged me to make up my own mind.

[Mr Pee]

Mr Pee, please illustrate where I have shown a wilful disregard for "the facts."

They may be the bones of R3. The DNA is far from conclusive at this stage. The rest of the "evidence" is, well,circumstantial at best. Even if they actually are his bones, I really don't see the historical interest. It may be interesting as a discovery, for tourism, to Leicester Uni, but are we really going to learn anything from it?

Well, for a start, I don't know how you determine that the DNA is far from conclusive. You don't need to be an expert to see that the print-outs showed an exact match. Do you really think the team would have presented such evidence, and stated "beyond all reasonable doubt" that this was indeed Richard III, unless they were sure of their findings? Sooner or later they would be ridiculed and the entire reputation of the University would have been tarnished. As Phillipa Langley said in an interview with the Sunday Times a few weeks ago, before the DNA results came through, "If we're wrong, we'll be on Have I got News For You for years to come."

Yes, most of the rest of the evidence is circumstantial. But it's pretty strong circumstantial evidence, from the location of the body, the carbon dating that showed when death occured- contemperaneous with the Battle of Bosworth field; to the manner of the burial, with the hands apparently tied, right through to the scoliosis- which is surely physical evidence rather than circumstantial. I don't know what more evidence you could expect to find after 500 years, unless you plan on borrowing a Tardis.

The strong circumstantial evidence and the condition of the skeleton itself, when combined with the DNA match, makes the case, as the team said, "beyond reasonable doubt".

And as for asking whether we are going to learn anything from the discovery, I find that an astonishing remark from somebody with a degree in History. In these early days we've already learnt plenty- the manner of the King's death, the truth about his physical deformity- even his diet has been determined. Perhaps we should just have left TutanKhamun in his tomb as well, and not bothered with the Roman Palace at Fishbourne, just down the road from here. After all, they are just tourist attractions these days.

[amateur51]

Well, for a start, I don't know how you determine that the DNA is far from conclusive. You don't need to be an expert to see that the print-outs showed an exact match.

Ever heard of Cyril Burt, Mr Pee?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Burt

[Pabmusic]

...Yes, most of the rest of the evidence is circumstantial...

We often use 'circumstantial evidence' as if it were a synonym for 'unreliable' or 'second-class' evidence. That's wholly wrong. The evidence that's often touted as best is in fact the poorest - eyewitness evidence. Naturally we have none in this case. CCTV or similar is usually very good (hardly applicable here, of course). Then there's scientific evidence of various kinds, which varies in plausibility with the type. DNA evidence, if the original is not too degraded, is among the most reliable scientific evidence (and DNA is a very inert molecule, which is why it can hang around for hundreds of years). Historical written evidence is much less reliable, since you have to be convinced the account was written by whom it is said to be, and represents the truth, yet there's no-one around to question.

That leaves circumstantial evidence - evidence that is consistent with what you're hoping to prove (if things were as I suspect, then this is just what I'd expect to find...). In a criminal trial, evidence that the defendant was found standing over the victim and holding the murder weapon is all circumstantial evidence, because no-one saw the attack. But it's pretty powerful stuff, and many people are in prison today on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

[Pabmusic]

Ever heard of Cyril Burt, Mr Pee?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Burt

Aren't we getting a little far from known reality, Ams? If evidence has been falsified, then the whole thing is a hoax, in which case scepticism wins the day. But in order for that to be so, there'd have to be quite a wide-ranging conspiracy, wouldn't there? How likely is that?

In the real world, this possibility does not carry weight equal to that of the official version. It could be true, but it is not likely in the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing.

Now that's being sceptical.

[Mr Pee]

Ever heard of Cyril Burt, Mr Pee?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Burt

Um..well, I have now, but what any of that article has to do with DNA matching or the discovery of Richard III, I have absolutely no idea.

But thanks for the link anyway....

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

ah but Cyril forged his own data Ams not just the interpretation.... do not think we can accuse Turi of that ...... and she will publish in a peer reviewed journal ...

i watched the C4 prog with growing conviction, a lot of the academics and professional experts were indeed sceptical but came to the view that it was a sound conclusion ...and well done C4 for pulling off such a coup, i hope this multidisciplinary project inspires thousands of young persons to pursue such studies and older persons to be interested in serious knowledge ....

btw i gather the dna match is with two descendants, one anonymous .... i doubt that those involved have the cheek to lie so publicly [unlike a certain politico eh?] and are sincere in their assertions ...

evidence as i understand it:
location of body as told in some accounts of Greyfriars burial
carbon dating of bones establishes skeleton as in the time frame for R3
injuries evidenced in skeletal remains correspond with contemporary accounts of death
evidence in skeleton of high protein diet not found in remains of commoners etc
DNA matches two bona fide family descendants

not evidence:
C4 involvement
U of L milking it for PR [and why not?]
emotionality in involved persons
envy of advantages gained in academic rivalries [lot of that about]
distaste for manner of disclosure
attractiveness of forensic reconstruction

[jean]

Unless I am much mistaken, nobody on this thread has used the term forensic evidence to indicate evidence obtained from forensic science.

Congratulations on your etymological awareness.