In this article, Gladwell compares two types of photography
that relies on the accurate analysis of the photograph in order to save
lives. In the Gulf War, there was
a four point six million dollar device that had the ability to take a high
resolution infrared photograph of a four and a half mile area. This was used to find trucks that were
firing or transporting missiles, also known as scuds. Bombers claimed to trust the cameras eyes better than their
own. Air force officials claimed
to have taken out about a hundred scuds.
The sad truth is that the number of definite kills is zero. Barry Watts, a former Air Force colonel
stated, “It’s night out. You think you’ve got something on the sensor. You roll out your weapons. Bombs go off. It’s really hard to tell what you did.” To seem so casual about bombing a
country is awful. Relying on
photographic evidence when there are possible innocent civilians to be killed
is a sad part of war. This brings
up the question of whether is it possible to put to much faith in
pictures. The answer is yes. Photographs can display truths but they
are not always accurate. When a
photo is taken it turns two dimensional which alters perspective. Thus altering the subject’s perspective
on what they are really looking at.
The
second type of photography that Gladwell brings up is Mammography. This is the process where women have
their breasts X-rayed to find cancerous tumors. This is another tool in which photography is trying to find
the truth but can not always be trusted.
Doctors have to analyze each X-ray with a new set of eyes because they
have come to realize how much the women’s breast can differ. There is not a clear-cut answer to
whether the doctor is seeing a cancerous calcium deposit or not. Doctors have to rely on the X-rays
because it is has the ability to show the truth even if that does not happen in
all cases.
These
two instances of relying on the truth of the camera bring up the point that we
cannot always trust the camera. In
both situations, the camera can lie and either people will die from bombings or
people will suffer through chemotherapy and other methods of ridding
cancer. The Canadians bring up a
strong point “that a skilled pair of fingertips can find out an extraordinary
amount about the health of a breast, and that we should not automatically value
what we see in a picture over what we learn from our other senses.” In order to find the real truth of
anything it is necessary to observe from multiple angles as well as
senses. There is a reason why
humans have more than just eyes and that is because we use all our senses in
order to interpret reality.
1 comment:
I agree with your arguement. The Canadian study that you mentioned, was one of the most interesting points I took away from the article. The idea that we rely on our eyes to show us the truth is absolutely true. We have grown up in such a visually stimulated culture, yet we are too often to jump to conclusions when we see something despite not knowing the full story. Humans also, often rely on the photo to tell them the truth, yet it is so easy to lie and manipulate photos. With the Mamograms the study showed that it didn't make a difference using them, and I found that to be quite surprising. If only we used our other senses as much as we used our eyes. It's important for us to continue to question everything around us. Who knows in the near future there might be a lot of hologram technology, and maybe it'll teach us a lesson; you can see a hologram sandwhich but it doesn't exisit as a sandwhich because it lacks the other senses such as taste and smell to define it as a sandwhich. It's identity would only be a hologram. Anyways, I think the point you made is a valid one, and that people should start to realize to trust themselves, and their own sense. If you smell fire, but don't see a fire, that doesn't mean there is no fire.
Post a Comment