The Lance Armstrong story - a failure of science?

Submitted by Robert Martin on Wed Oct 24th, 9.30am

This last week sporting headlines have been dominated by Lance Armstrong and the revelations that he has been found guilty of doping. Armstrong has been stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and has been banned from cycling for life. The US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) justified its decision by claiming that,

"The evidence shows beyond any doubt that the US Postal Service Pro Cycling Team ran the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen."

According to the 'evidence', Armstrong was guilty. Yet, what kind of evidence convicted Armstrong? Was is purely forensic "scientific" evidence? Not really. Whilst there was some forensic scientific evidence supporting the case against Armstrong (you can read the full report here) there was little hard forensic evidence of positive drug tests. In fact, the report against Armstrong shows the variety of techniques he adopted in order to avoid positive drug tests. No, it wasn't science that convicted Armstrong. The vast bulk of the evidence against him was the sworn testimony of 26 people, including 15 other riders.

This is significant because a number of modern thinkers claim that science is the only legitimate and reliable method of securing knowledge. Daniel Dennett claimed that, 'There is no better source of truth on any topic than well-conducted science'. This group are also caustic to the value of eye-witness testimony, which they consider faulty and untrustworthy. Victor Stenger criticises eye-witness testimony as being 'notoriously unreliable' and Richard Dawkins writes that 'eye-witness testimony, 'actual observation', 'a datum of experience' - are all, or at least can be, hopelessly unreliable'.

This elevation of science as the only legitimate and secure pathway to knowledge is known as scientism - the belief that science alone can give us truth in the world. The Lance Armstrong case demonstrates a clear failure of scientism.

Science itself is an extremely useful and reliable tool to obtain knowledge, but it is a tool with limits. It is also a tool that can be avoided or manipulated, as the Armstrong case demonstrates. Yet science is not the only tool to secure knowledge of the world. Eyewitness testimony can also be a reliable pathway to the truth, contrary to the claims of Dawkins and Stenger. The case against Lance Armstrong demonstrates that very clearly.

An important implication of this relates to our understanding of the events of Jesus' life and most notably Jesus' resurrection. Access to these events are beyond the realms of scientific enquiry, yet we have the eye-witness testimony of many who saw them. Perhaps we should consider this testimony as extremely significant when considering the truth of the claims about Jesus: remember it was the eye-witnesses who cost Lance Armstrong his titles.

Comments

What a poor excuse for an

Submitted by Steven (not verified) on Wed Oct 31st, 5.51pm

What a poor excuse for an argument! I doubt anyone is suggesting science is able to prove 100% of theories 100% of the time. It is however, most often the only way to substantiate what may or may not be ludicrous claims? According to this method of obtaining the truth I should take the man on the streets eyewitness testimony regarding unicorns seriously? Whilst there was little scientific evidence of Armstrong cheating, there was some. I bet Lance Armstrong could provide 'eye witness' testimony that he never engaged in doping?
Using that analogy to compare with centuries old tales handed down through generations and formulated into writing years after the supposed event is the height of blind faith, not an argument. There have also been writings and tales passed down about creatures I am certain you do not believe, yet I could use the Lance Armstrong conviction to also 'prove' they do.
I too am a believer but it will take a lot more than this clearly biased article, devoid of any significant substance to reassure those with even the slightest doubts.

Not sure I agree

Submitted by Robert Martin on Thu Nov 1st, 9.20am

Steven,

Thanks for the comment. I don't think I agree with some of your comments.

// According to this method of obtaining the truth I should take the man on the streets eyewitness testimony regarding unicorns seriously? //

Absolutely! Provided of course there are corroborating eye-witness accounts. Can you provide me with an example of multiple eye witness accounts of unicorns? I would be deeply suspicious of one person who claimed to see a unicorn, but if 500 at once claimed to see one, I'd have to take that testimony seriously don't you think?

I agree that there was some corroborating scientific evidence of Armstrong cheating (and I did mention that in the post) but that was not the primary reason he was stripped of his titles - it was on the basis of multiple eye-witness accounts.

On your last point, my point was that the Lance Armstrong story shows the value of eye-witness testimony in adducing 'truth'. The account of the resurrection began with eye-witnesses which I'm not sure accords with the origin of the accounts of other creatures you mention. Can you suggest some other creatures which we probably don't believe in which originated with multiple eye-witness accounts? You can listen to a presentation I made on this very topic here.

Thanks for the comments and I look forward to further interaction.

Clarification

Submitted by Steven (not verified) on Thu Nov 1st, 11.49am

// ***Absolutely! Provided of course there are corroborating eye-witness accounts. Can you provide me with an example of multiple eye witness accounts of unicorns? I would be deeply suspicious of one person who claimed to see a unicorn, but if 500 at once claimed to see one, I'd have to take that testimony seriously don't you think?*** //

I understand what you are saying here and agree with you as you have written it. However it diverges from the point that skeptics make regarding this as it pertains to a multiple eyewitness account. For example, how would you consider the following? A well respected and loved person records the details of a widely believed impossible event (such as a flying unicorn) that he claims to have witnessed. In this testimony it is written that it occured with over 500 people watching, all of who agree with the viewers account. The writing is found years later and then printed and taught as fact? This 'evidence' is far from being a multiple eyewitness account and does not really deliver a crushing blow to the adversaries of that account occurring. Consider a child that is shown a book suggesting 500 people travelled to edge of the world and saw it was indeed flat . If this was taught and reinforced that child would believe this as fact until the evidence was presented to the contrary. In the absence of contradicting evidence, this belief would remain. This is not an argumant that we ARE decieved, yet I am able to see how it can be used to argue that possibilty.

Perhaps I was a little too ambiguous and liberal with my comments, however these are the questions I am presented with in friendly discussions with peers who do not necessarily share the same beliefs as me. I also don't believe in, nor do I advocate the use of the use of mythical creatures in these types of arguments. It is more to help my point across.

As for uniciorns or other mythic creatures, there are many websites and publications dedicated to their existence including multiple eye-witness acounts. I am constantly battered with arguments based on the same theory - that it is not only irrational to believe something purely because it cannot be disproven but it is a failed argument to use that logic as proof of that belief. I advocate to non-believers that not only is there no evidence proving god does not exist, but the only information we have (albeit arguable) is evidence towards god's existence. Surely this in itself is enough to suggest no belief in deity is irrational. They use the purple unicorn theory in rebuttle. I struggle to have them accept tthat their evidence of non-existence is merely the lack of the evidence to the contrary.

My main point is that arguments such as this do not go any way towards challenging those with differing viewpoints, it merely strenghtens and reassures our own viewpoints. The truth is, we are still relying on unconfirmed testimony of witnesses. We know and believe it to be true, however there is no way to convince non-believers that these 'so-called' eye witness accounts are accurate or true simply because they were recorded over 2000 years ago by strong believers. No one is able to substantiate any of these claims that there were even multiple people to have witnessed it. Even I must agree with them that the recordings of one person, 2000 years ago is still only the testimony of one person no matter how many other people that one persons claims were there.

My own opinion is that humans are able to use any number of validations or 'proofs' to confirm what they inherently believe to be true. There can be true and correct accounts, but there also can be willful, intentional deception. There can also be misguided, unintentional mistakes of recollection and even belief so strong it can fabricate accounts. Consider the eyewitness accounts of incidents such as the kennedy assassination. There is video footage, yet so many recorded accounts from witnesses stray from the actual evidence. There have been scientific trials where people will recount details of a shared experience and there will be several different accounts. Many factors can affect the memeory and recounting of these experiences, not the least of which in these tests can be an intentional fabrication which is then substantiated by several other witnesses.

I believe deep down it is a question of faith and belief. If one believes strongly enough then some 'facts' no matter how vague or unsubstantiated will reinforce those beliefs. All available knowledge suggests that it is not possible for a human to be resurrected after death the same as it suggests it is not possible for us to conjour dragons. This is not evidence of its impossibility however, much the same in that the lack of evidence proving something is impossible is evedence it can occur. They simply reinforce our belief and they reinforce others' doubts. I think relations would be far superior should each person be allowed, in all freedom from judgment and ridicule, be able to hold their own beliefs to be true without constant need and battle for evidence and proof (on either side).

Regards,
Steven.

Defending historicity

Submitted by Ken West on Thu Nov 1st, 3.53pm

Steven,

With respect to your final paragraph, when you say it is a "question of faith and belief" are you meaning privately-held opinions? If that's the case then I see your point that we should be able to hold such opinions without judgement or ridicule.

But when these opinions enter the public sphere, it's natural to ask "Why?" to understand the basis of these opinions.

The resurrection of Jesus has always been the central idea that Christians have proclaimed in the public square. They have always presented it as an historical event. It's only reasonable, then, for people to expect that Christians should be able to defend the historicity of their historical message.

Defending historicity is not the same as proving the resurrection, but it's a reasonable response.

Ken

Yes Ken, that was my meaning.

Submitted by Steven (not verified) on Thu Nov 1st, 4.16pm

Yes Ken, that was my meaning. I perhaps strayed from the central theme of the original blog which I took to suggest the evidence for the bible's claim that the resurrection was an historical event rest on its own admission that there was multiple eyewitness testimonies to the fact. I do not accept that logic.

For me, the 'why' does not matter. I also wish that it did not matter to anyone else what fuels my own, or another's, beliefs and faith. I choose to take the word of the bible as truth and that is my own reasoning and should need no proof or evidence, particularly in order to defend my decision. I strongly believe there is as much (or perhaps as little) evidence on both sides of the fence as to be not worthwhile arguing over. That time and energy could be spent far better living our lives with compassion and understanding for fellow humans regardles which faith, if any, we choose to follow.

I think that different people

Submitted by Kei (not verified) on Thu Nov 1st, 6.23pm

I think that different people sometimes need different types of evidence. For some people, like myself, a genuine barrier to belief in the past was reconciling what science said and what the Bible said. It was important for me to go through all the theories about science, evolution, etc to come to a conclusion it wasn't all insane, knowing full well that I wouldn't be able to get all the answers but it was ok. It was important to me that there were actual reputable scientists that had thought about things thoroughly and had come to the conclusion that the Bible was not inconsistent with science. For others, they don't need to do this, they are willing to, accept what the Bible says without much proof or evidence. I think we need to be conscious of the way different people think/learn/come to believe because everyone is different.

Also agree that science certainly has it's limitations and a lot of how we reach conclusions today depends on testimony (e.g. in most court cases).

Different people

Submitted by Robert Martin on Fri Nov 2nd, 9.07am

Hi everyone, thanks for the good natured discussion. I agree a lot with Kei, different people need different types of evidence. I deal a lot with people who reject eyewitness testimony as a valid form of 'truth'.

I see that the testimony of the Scriptures form the basis of my trust in Jesus, and I want to ensure that my life is based on something trustworthy, rather than simply wishful thinking. Hence, I think it's really important to assess the veracity of a truth claim. Conversely a number of people reject the Scriptures as trustworthy because it's based on eye-witnesss accounts and I wrote this piece to challenge that view.