Blache's Disagree With Wylie

1) I disagree with Popper and I agree with Wylie. Using Blache’s case you can clearly see how her knowledge of who committed the murder did not come from Popper’s theory of “observer neutrality.” Everyone is not born into the same social-economic status, race, gender, sex, etc. Everyone goes through different experiences and this gives them a different outlook on life in general. Your knowledge and skills may be vastly different from the knowledge and skill sets of the person next to you. Sometimes you can use your status and skills to your advantage which is the only way Blanche could have figured out who the murder was. Her race was the main factor in her being able to know who committed the murder. She was treated as being incompetent and
A cop at the time would have been a white male. This cop would have had access to education and a much higher social- economic status than Blache. Even though, the cop would be in a different status than Blache, he would be a typical white male in society. There wouldn’t be much special about him compared to any other person of the majority. This gives us our “Observer neutrality.” Both the cop and Blache wants to come to one answer of who is the murderer. Using the assumption that no one in the family was going to willingly give themselves up, I think that the cop wouldn’t have been able to get to a conclusion as to who committed the murder and why like Blache who has advantages like her oppressed race. She gets to analyze information that she wouldn’t have gotten had she been a white female. She can get to the correct answer because of this “bias” that gives her the upper hand. The cop would have to investigate more than Blache. Since he is on the same social economic level as the family, so they would probably never tell him who did it. By him being the neutral party and trying to find out who did it, it would be very hard for him or any cop to use “observer neutrality” to find out who should go to