User:Mouxy73/sandbox

The Question of Truth in Law
In 1966, the Supreme Court of the United States declared that “the basic purpose of a trial is the determination of truth.”. Law should serve the truth and be a tool to uncover it. But if trials were working perfectly, the existence of appeals would be baseless. Trials establish a ‘formal legal truth’ based on facts presented in the court. While it is expected this formal legal truth is the same as the substantive truth, it isn’t always the case.

R. summers give two reasons for this divergence: the first is mostly cost considerations. One cannot defend himself as well as someone who can afford a very good lawyer. In these cases, the substantive truth might not be uncovered due to a lack of trial preparation for example. The second reason calls into question the trial court procedures. The facts are supposed to lead to the substantive truth; however they are constrained by the law and can’t all be accepted in court. For example, a coerced confession isn’t considered as valid and can’t be taken into account by a judge even if it leads to the substantive truth.

In addition, if it said that the purpose of a trial is to uncover the truth, both parties (defense and prosecution) do not always seek to inquire the truth but only to defend their cause. S. Haack qualifies the trial of a contest as to whether enough proof is given, and not a search for the truth.

Moreover, those who give the verdict and create the formal legal truth are men. They can be influenced and manipulated into believing something is true. Thus, if law as a discipline is to be trusted because it brings people together in a community where they obey the same rules, the truth it seeks to discover is constructed by men, which makes it questionable.

The history of psychology as a branch of medicine
Mind and body were believed to be linked in Ancient times. The saying "Mens sana in corpore sano", which is a quote from Juvenal in Satires, is still used today. This citation demonstrates the importance in people’s mind of, in order to be well, not only be in a good physical shape but also in a good state of mind. The interdependence between body and mind was questioned throughout the centuries with in parallel the interdependence between psychology and medicine. The involvement of psychology in medicine has not been continuous or unanimously encouraged. Different from psychiatry which can be considered as the medical form of psychology because it uses prescriptions and medicines, psychology itself has come to be a medical discipline. Psychology can be simply defined as the study of experience and behaviour according to Sonja Hunt in The relationship between psychology and medicine, which makes a common point with medicine: an interest in human functioning. However as mentioned earlier, the link between these two disciplines was questioned when the view on Man changed: body and mind became two distinct areas of study in the 17th century, especially due to the work of Descartes (Mediationes de Prima philosophia, Meditation VI).

If the view on the link between mind and body has since changed and psychology is considered essential, it may still be marginalised. The sometimes-abstract aspect of the discipline, less concrete than other branches of medicine can undermine the credibility of the discipline. Nevertheless, psychology is increasingly recognised especially with the growing awareness of the importance of mental health. However, a new question may arise as psychology can appear as more important. A psychologist may be seen as a mere new fashion rather than belonging to the medical profession and essential to health.

The role of evidence in archaeology
The discipline of archaeology can de be simply defined as the retrieval and study of evidences to understand the human activity and past. These evidences are qualitative and primary. Archaeological practice relies on evidence. The challenge in this discipline is how evidences, sometimes retrieved thousands of years later, can be interpretated correctly. This task relies on the archaeologist who has to analyse the data to validate or revoke his or someone else’s thesis. This interpretation has to be as objective as possible, it is one of the key stakes of archaeology. We can distinguish two movements in this discipline: processual and postprocessual archaeology. Processual archaelogy believes that a scientific method can analyse and interpret data. However, postprocessual archaeology believes it isn’t possible, the archaeologist will always have his bias and won’t be able to be completely objective. Studying evidence according to postprocessual archaeologists relies on theory (theoretical discussions and criteria).

Therefore, a discipline such as archaeology, which practice depends on evidence, shows us how evidences in themselves are not enough. It is the meaning they are given by archaeologists through work and analyses which gives them the status of evidence. Without it, they would only be artifacts, ecofacts and not evidences which proved or demonstrated an aspect of human’s past and way of living.

Nevertheless, studying artefacts without a method can lead to extreme interpretations, which is illustrated by pseudoarchaeology, also known as alternative archaeology. By refuting scientific analysis pseudoarchaeologists can give evidences completely different meanings. Therefore, the status of evidence and its meaning must be carefully apprehended in archaeology.