I saw that guy on the news. He was asked: "What evidence do you have to support this new view ?". He never gave a straight answer though. All he managed to come up with was that it seemed more plausible to him than the old view. Not taking any sides here, but I need to see some evidence first. :shrug:
Yes, but that's about as detailed as it gets. They guy on the news (the German historian, I forget his name) laid out those police report (he told the story), but there is no evidence in it just some reason for uncertainty about the whole affair. I'll try to retell the story as he told it. The conventional view: Van Gogh and Gauguin had a fight some night and van Gogh pulled his knife on him. But then, all of a sudden, he turned the knife on himself and cut off his ear. The alternative view: Van Gogh and Gauguin had a fight some night and van Gogh pulled his knife on him. Gauguin then pulled his saber and cut off part of Van Gogh's ear. According to the police report he then went home. Van Gogh was found by (whoever) and was brought to the hospital. When he returned to Van Gogh's house the next day he found the police there. He told the police the conventional story (see above) and that Van Gogh then stumbled a few hundred meter to the nearest whorehouse and gave his severed ear to some whore there. The historian argues that Gauguin couldn't have known that and so concludes that it's more plausible that Gauguin did it. He mentioned a few other things that were even less convincing that I can't remember. ! This must all be in the article ? Damn it.. I'll go look.
Ok, this is the jest: "The authors have re-examined contemporary police reports and surviving, second-hand accounts of witness statements, including contradictory declarations by Gauguin. They admit that final proof is lacking, and that the police investigation into a drunken brawl between two artists was half-hearted at best. Nonetheless, they say that all the evidence points to the fact that Gauguin accidentally sliced off his friend's ear." "including contradictory declarations by Gauguin" -Yes, agreed. "They admit that final proof is lacking" -Uhuh. Nonetheless, they say that all the evidence points to the fact that Gauguin accidentally sliced off his friend's ear. -Where did THAT come from ? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"Fact" is the wrong word here. He has not established this as a fact and neither has anyone else. What he's talking about is a "hunch," or what detectives call a "theory." This is not the same as a scientific theory. Our theories are used to predict the future behavior of the universe so they can never be proven true. Detectives' theories are used to explain events that have already occurred, so they may be proven true, although not always. He's also wrong to say that "all" the evidence points to his theory--which we scientists would call a "hypothesis" until it's proven "true beyond a reasonable doubt." What he means to say is: "... the preponderance of evidence points to the theory that Gaugin accidentally sliced off his friend's ear. This guy is not a very good writer. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yep Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! On a side note.. can't something be done about that troll above. He's all over the forum spouting nonsense. It's pretty obvious that it's on purpose as well..
What the hell. Read wikipedia then! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)#Van_Gogh.27s_murder
