按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
One bright day I came home from court and saw a man step out of a cornfield； remain a few instants in my field of vision； and then disappear。 I felt at once that the man had done something suspicious； and immediately asked myself how he looked。 I found I knew nothing of his clothes； his dress； his beard； his size； in a word； nothing at all about him。 But how I would have punished a witness who should have known just as little。 We shall have； in the course of this examination； frequently to mention the fact that we do not see an event in spite of its being in the field of perception。 I want at this point merely to call attention to a single well…known case； recorded by Hofmann。＇2＇ At a trial a circumstantial and accurate attempt was made to discover whether it was a significant alteration to bite a man's ear off。 The court； the physician； the witnesses； etc。； dealt with the question of altering； until finally the wounded man himself showed what was meant； because his other ear had been bitten off many years before；but then nobody had noticed that mutilated ear。
＇2＇ Gericht。 Medizin。 Vienna 1898。 p。 447。
In order to know what another person has seen and apprehended we must first of all know how he thinks； and that is impossible。 We frequently say of another that he must have thought this or that； or have hit upon such and such ideas； but what the events in another brain may be we can never observe。 As Bois…Reymond says somewhere： ‘‘If Laplace's ghost could build a homunculus according to the Leibnitzian theory； atom by atom and molecule by molecule； he might succeed in making it think； but not in knowing how it thinks。'' But if we know； at least approximately； the kind of mental process of a person who is as close as possible to us in sex； age； culture； position； experience； etc。； we lose this knowledge with every step that leads to differences。 We know well what great influence is exercised by the multiplicity of talents； superpositions； knowledge； and apprehensions。 When we consider the qualities of things； we discover that we never apprehend them abstractly； but always concretely。 We do not see color but the colored object； we do not see warmth； but something warm； not hardness； but something hard。 The concept warm； as such； can not be thought of by anybody； and at the mention of the word each will think of some particular warm object； one； of his oven at home； another； of a warm day in Italy； another of a piece of hot iron which burnt him once。 Then the individual does not pay constant court to the same object。 To…day he has in mind this concrete thing； to…morrow； he uses different names and makes different associations。 But every concrete object I think of has considerable effect on the new apprehension； and my auditor does not know； perhaps even I myself do not； what concrete object I have already in mind。 And although Berkeley has already shown that color can not be thought of without space or space without color； the task of determining the concrete object to which the witness attaches the qualities he speaks of； will still be overlooked hundreds of times。
It is further of importance that everybody has learned to know the object he speaks about through repetition； that different relations have shown him the matter in different ways。 If an object has impressed itself upon us； once pleasurably and once unpleasantly； we can not derive the history and character of the present impression from the object alone； nor can we find it merely in the synthetic memory sensations which are due to the traces of the former coalescing impressions。 We are frequently unable； because of this coalescing of earlier impressions； to keep them apart and to study their effect on present impressions。 Frequently we do not even at all know why this or that impression is so vivid。 But if we are ignorant with regard to what occurs in ourselves； how much can we know about others？
Exner calls attention to the fact that it is in this direction especially； that the ‘‘dark perceptions'' play a great rle。 ‘‘A great part of our intelligence depends on the ability of these ‘dark perceptions' to rise without requiring further attention； into the field of consciousness。 There are people； e。 g。； who recognize birds in their flight without knowing clearly what the characteristic flight for any definite bird may be。 Others； still more intelligent； know at what intervals the flyers beat their wings； for they can imitate them with their hands。 And when the intelligence is still greater； it makes possible a correct description in words。''
Suppose that in some important criminal case several people； of different degrees of education and intelligence； have made observations。 We suppose that they all want to tell the truth； and we also suppose that they have observed and apprehended their objects correctly。 Their testimonies； nevertheless； will be very different。 With the degree of intelligence rises the degree of effect of the ‘‘dark subconscious perceptions。'' They give more definite presentation and explanation of the testimony； they turn bare assertions into well…ordered perceptions and real representations。 But we generally make the mistake of ascribing the variety of evidence to varying views； or to dishonesty。
To establish the unanimity of such various data； or to find out whether they have such unanimity； is not easy。 The most comfortable procedure is to compare the lesser testimonies with those of the most intelligent of the witnesses。 As a rule； anybody who has a subconscious perception of the object will be glad to bring it out if he is helped by some form of expression； but the danger of suggestion is here so great that this assistance must be given only in the rarest of cases。 The best thing is to help the witness to his full evidence gradually； at the same time taking care not to suggest oneself and thus to cause agreement of several testimonies which were really different but only appeared to look contradictory on account of the effect of subconscious perceptions。 The very best thing is to take the testimony as it comes； without alteration； and later on； when there is a great deal of material and the matter has grown clearer； to test the stuff carefully and to see whether the less intelligent persons gave different testimonies through lack of capacity in expression； or because they really had perceived different things and had different things to say。
This is important when the witnesses examined are experts in the matter in which they are examined。 I am convinced that the belief that such people must be the best witnesses； is false； at least as a generalization。 Benneke （loco cit。）； has also made similar observations。 ‘‘The chemist who perceives a chemical process； the connoisseur a picture； the musician a symphony； perceive them with more vigorous attention than the layman； but the actual attention may be greater with the latter。'' For our own affair； it is enough to know that the judgment of the expert will naturally be better than that of the layman； his apprehension； however； is as a rule one…sided； not so far…reaching and less uncolored。 It is natural that every expert； especially when he takes his work se