Nobel Prize vs Proof that the Death Penalty MUST kill innocents

The life of a person was at stake. The decision to take her life was just as irreversible as the decision to take the life of anyone else, including a convicted murderer.The people supporting her (including her brother) made that very connection.The reason to pull the plug is that we could be certain she was in a vegetative state with no chance of recovery (well actually not no, but so slight as to be negligible), and that it was proven (it was certain) she did not want her body kept alive in that state.This "certainty" was determined through the courts using rules of evidence.Now I can accept the ruling of the courts, and I can accept the evidence. Heck for capital cases I would even want more than was present here.But you are claiming that for a capital case you cannot accept the ability to be certain (it is "irrelevant"), which you had to accept in the Schiavo case... and that lady didn't kill anyone and there were people wanting to take care of her!Saying "yup", and "it's simple. its irreversible" doesn't cut it anymore. They both dealt with the same thing, rules of evidence to determine certainty in order to put a person to death. They were both irreversible.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This is a patent case of disingenuousness. The COURT determined THEY were carrying out HER WISHES?Uhhhh, exactly how did that do that Jar? Through examining evidence to that fact, and there were people that DID argue the evidence was NOT TRUE. There were a number of people arguing (they had evidence) that she did NOT WISH IT.But the courts looked at the EVIDENCE, and made a decision which was irreversible.On top of that the evidence the doctors used to make their diagnosis, and prognosis is the same evidence that would be in a court trial. If we cannot trust them to be honest when a person's life is at stake in a court trial, how can we trust them to be honest when a person's life is at stake in a court trial?Whether she was actually dead "a long time ago" is not even real. She was not dead, only possibly dead "as a person" (meaning the identity of Terri) was irretrievable. Now I do believe that the findings could determine this, but unless you are going to become arbitrary you cannot say you trust the scientists in this case, but not in others (because those OTHERS might be biased or bribed).Hell we had people posting some accurate info on the bias of some of the doctors and lawyers, and there certainly were doctors that disagreed with the diagnosis! You can keep saying there is no parallel, but the parallel is quite clear. And I have already set it out. Your original claim is we cannot have evidence which leads to a conclusion of certainty allowed by any court if it will result in an irreversible decision.Now you give me that in a specific case where they did just that, its all different because the court used evidence to come to a conclusion of certainty, despite the fact that it resulted in an irreversible decision.And by the way, there have been killers that not only confessed but asked to be put to death. Indeed some had to fight their own lawyers and the courts to have it done.But I guess that isn't parallel either.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Unless you are arguing for the cessation of all human activity it does not. Perhaps I am just not making myself clear.If you do blame the institution of "flying" for 9/11, then that is the end of it. That is what you are arguing for. Not fixes, not anything else. IF an abuse can lead to WRONGFUL DEATH then it is to blame and must be ended.Saying you must end all death penalties because that sentence is ultimately sullied by potentially ridiculous frame-ups, then so is every other human endeavour as they can ALL be perverted in this same way, in order to kill someone.Most certainly that goes for all law enforcement and all military. Actually there is to all but the most absurd metaphysical and conspiratorial possibilities. By the way WTC was not absurd. It was brilliant. Brilliant planning and brilliant execution. Not in any way did it involve massive conspiracies necessary to get (as an example of just some criteria we can demand):1) Several eyewitnesses to the event itself with no prior connections.
2) Having positive physical visual confirmation of the suspect at the scene engaged in the crime.
3) Having several other pieces of physical evidence tying the murderer to the scene and the crime.
4) The suspects willing confession and continued acceptence of the confession in court (which is not a soviet style kangaroo court).Those were a bunch of guys that studied how to fly, how to fight, and calculated where to hit a place once they got hold of planes at a certain time. That involved no one outside of themselves.The level of absurdity we are currently discussing are those claiming that 9/11 never actually happened and it is all a con, or that Washington did indeed create 9/11 with the help of a Jewish organization.Now do you KNOW that 9/11 happened or not? How DO you KNOW? A simple cop conspiracy cannot get a death penalty with a certain level of evidentiary rules in place. We can certainly make it tough enough that they always shoot people in fake raids (which seems to be what everyone is able to accept willingly and view as nonreversible).Maybe I should make that last point quite clear. Police and other law enforcement as well as the military have the right to kill you without prior court approval. They will generally always have that as long as you have a police and military (at least one that can exert its will).Their deciding to kill people is just as irreversible. Do you accept that? No see we're already well past that. I did not say we could not create a system whereby a jury could not be fooled. Remember we are dealing at this point with hypothetical hyper conspiracies where entire juries are bought out.That is about the only case left, and that includes all subsequent judges being bought out for appeals regarding the tainted jury. The only other one being that the judges and all the lawyers and all the police and the defendent himself are in on fooling the jury. Those are the two cases we are currently discussing, unless we start bringing in demons.Thus if we find out there was a mistake, just like the prisoner situation, we sure have some guilty people to hold accountable, because there was no "mistake", there was conspiracy.Certainly we can make a mistake proof system. That is what I said and why I argued hyper-conspiracies should not count as they can hit any human endeavour (theoretically). Sorry, crash you only got it half right. Do you understand what you mean when we say that to creos? Because from where I'm sitting it doesn't look like it.Do we hold it tentative that Gould wrote essays supporting evolutionary theory? See what I'm saying? Gould's theories were tentative, that Gould wrote them is not.Skepticism on the level you are now discussing was dismissed by science over 100 years ago. Yes, it is noted that there are metaphysical logical possibilities, but they are of the kind not practical to hold without voiding the concept of knowledge or certainty altogether.Man I love Hume and DesCartes. We can dismiss everything but that we exist... in theory. But in the pratical day to day world it is possible to achieve practical knowledge. That is your foot, for all practical purposes your wife exists, and yes sometimes you can know for certain someone killed somebody else.Scientific theories are generally about things that do not reach, cannot reach, that level of absolute certainty and thus have a tentative nature. Yet even with that tentative nature we allow cleaving of some possibilities for practical purposes. Some will never be entertained.I do not see why a court system must be weakened so greatly in reason, that we must throw out rules of knowledge to insist courts entertain the greatest of absurdities as equal to what is practical certain knowledge. Funny but this thread was how to build a system and yet everyone, including you refuse to take even the first step.But no I never said I could come up with something absolutely capable of defeating hyper-conspiracies and Gods. No one can. But at that level having jail sentences at all or having cops at all is as good as allowing the death sentence for all crimes.All I claimed is that humans could come up with a system to exclude innocent people from being executed. That means mistakes. Everyone seems to miss the point that they are talking about REPLACING the system we could have with something else.Yeah, I can't defeat that one. Yeah that's pretty silly. So why are you guys insisting that I have to accept that rationale? That is YOUR logical position, not mine.If we have rules in place, a SYSTEM of rules in place... and that SYSTEM is NOT BOUGHT OUT OR REPLACED THROUGH VAST CONSPIRACY, or GODS have NOT TRICKED US ALL... then that system can preclude innocent people ending up on death row.Claiming otherwise is as farcical as saying a system without a death penalty can accidentally kill someone. Wow great little zinger. Note for future post, you missed:
1) Addressing my straightforward question regarding knowledge
2) Addressing the schiavo case.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You have suddenly become very dull. Congratulations, you have finally admitted to something and agreed with me (I win). The fact that you tacked on that it could still be wrong just made you that much duller.For the future, could you please stay out of threads I start if you have no intention of making a positive contribution.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Epistemological rules designed to get at levels of theoretical and practical knowledge. Sometimes the only thing left as logical possibilities (and yes they are logical possibilities) are so implausible and metaphysical in nature that they do not worthy of consideration in practical every day life.I would say this, if a GOD walked up to me and asked me anything, the answer would have to be I don't know. The level of possible metaphysical absurdities or conspiracies would suddenly become lot more plausible that they could enter practical consideration.On top of that I could say I know and then the God reverses everything. Because what is the point? First of all there isn't one system, there are lots of systems that are possible.But more than that, people have to be able to admit they use rules of knowledge and can actually decide that something is certain. Without that no system can emerge.I was trying to prove a larger point on knowledge itself, how we use rules to get to it, by guiding people through the process.The first person to admit anything, and then still backtracked is jar.This is all an exhibition of hypocrisy and I find it nauseating. Actually I already did (in short). Modern scientific methodology is a set of rules regarding knowledge. While it does have tentativity, it does not involve itself with absurd metaphysical possibilities as if probable (even debatable), and of those that are probable contains ways of choosing between them.Courts can be even more picky regarding knowledge. Certainly for a court trying a capital case I would hope it would. Indeed I would hope the system itself is created to highlight the function of weeding out false positives.Ultimately one can create sets of rules such that innocents cannot be executed, yet not all those that are found guilty of murder (and really are) can be executed. That would be the trade off in order to preserve life, the rules are tightened beyond current concepts of evidence for general guilt.Yes I have shown that people can develop systems of knowledge and that even systems with tentative natures, allow for practical knowledge which is not tentative (except to philosophers contemplating the metaphysical).I have also tried to start that process of development by getting people to admit the first basic thing, that they know something. That they know something so clearly that it is impractical, to absurd to deny its truth.Well I cannot stop willful ignorance or arguments fron ignorance.As Galileo found out, you can show them the telescope, but they doesn't mean they have to look. I honestly did not get exactly what your were stating in the second part of your post. I don't want to reply and then find out I got it wrong. It looked potentially useful so could you repeat it but make it a little more clear? Thanks.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Heheheh... It's gotta be my writing that's killing me here. Ah if I only had the clarity of Faith. I'm starting to worry I'm turning into McFall (as it is some of his recent posts actually made sense to me and he's been agreeing with me more often). This is a perfect example. Stream of consciousness obviously is not working for me here. The quote was trying to say this:"All I claimed is that humans could devise a system to exclude innocent people from being executed, that means mistakes like we have now would be eliminated. "What I can never get around is the possibility that someone replaces the system with another one, or that Gods play a cosmic joke. Unfortunately it is built on fallacies and hidden premises. It sure sounds great but it would fall apart if you (any one of you) would simply start the process of analyzing it.As it is jar has finally come up with a situation where he could acknowledge some sort of reality. Technically we could build a system as tight as that. That a person confesses to a case with plenty of evidence and desires to be executed.In case you are about to counter with that is unlikely to happen, I have repeatedly said that frequency of its use is not my concern and does not invalidate its use. And yes there are cases of this happening.Frankly I'd argue for something less severe than that, but there we go, one system with the only bizarre caveats that we could have a suicide that frames himself or someone that has been brainwashed into a suicide by a group with massive ability to produce corroborative evidence and their work go undetected (including the brainwashing) by anyone or some God like thing has fooled everyone. Have you ever heard of throwing the baby out with the bath water?I am firmly behind the first premise. It is always unacceptable for a state to wrongly execute someone... though I would extend that to KILL someone. I don't like bad wars or police that kill wrongly either.I am also behind the second, though I might also rephrase that into "we must develop systems so that we can ensure it will not happen".But the third is not a logical conclusion at all, without a hidden premise (or more) between 2 and 3.You must somehow join "must ensure that does not happen" to a logical conclusion that the ONLY method left is to eliminate the death penalty. You have made a leap in logic and it is ludicrous to me that you cannot see that. I found the chink. If people spent less time tooting their horn and more time outlining and analyzing their arguments, we'd get somewhere faster.The problem is between premise 2 and the conclusion (let's call it 3). You have missing premises. while I am personally open to this possibility, that is not what most are desiring and I'd be willing to accomodate most of the people in making it even tighter. We can really get past that as well.The only thing I cannot get past is a system swap out, which means we aren't discussing what I am talking about, or a metaphysical snafu of godlike proportions. There is the beginning of your hidden premise. It of course contains its own argument that you will have to unpack, unless you are willing to accept blank assertions. I certainly have disputed it. Where is the logical argument that death penalty must result in innocent people getting killed?With all of the requests for me to outline the system (which I keep trying to show and only one has slightly allowed), no one is answering my request to show their proof.All I get is the silly-gism of all humans make mistakes all the time, all systems are products of humans, therefore all systems will contain mistakes.Even if that were true, which it isn't, it does not logically follow that all types of mistakes are possible.Now you can help me. What I don't get is why no one is answering my straightforward questions on real or hypothetical cases of knowledge? Why am I treated instead to the same arguments of position again and again?Also, why are you dodging me on the schiavo issue?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

If you are serious with this question then you need to do more reading on the subject. I even gave a practical example regarding Gould and Gould's theories.But I'll do a short answer. The nature of evidence and subject matter that most of science touches on is not in the same ballpark as what you find going on in the question of did mr A do B?Again the closest would be running trials on figuring out if billiard ball A caused B to move. That really ends up leaving the tentative stage even for science. We could get into nuances of how, or what within A does the moving, but the macro level observation of ball moving touching ball that moves away is sufficient for practical knowledge.For things like evolution we do not have witnesses and we do not have clear cut evidence of any kind. It is by nature fragmented and so beyond reaching practical certain knowledge, though we can accept it as practical scientific knowledge (used for making models for future investigation).In a court many trials will also not match the level of certain knowledge. I freely admit this will be more common than not. They include fragmentary evidence and often without witnesses as well. Thus in most court trials the results should be considered tentative.HOWEVER, just as some causative relationships are practical certain knowledge in science so we can have them in court rooms. Nice. Keep coming with the quick one liners.If you want the elimination of even the most absurd, then you are arguing for the aburd.What's funny is you're willing to kill a helpless cripple who may want to desperately stay alive and can get better at any moment, yet have pity on raging maniacs who openly kill and are proud of it.All the parents and friends of schiavo wanted was the elimination of even the most absurd an impractical doubt, or they want a tentative pulling of life support.Which of those can YOU provide? Oh that's right, this one is even worse because killing her robbed them of providing any proof. Ah well.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

In some cases yes, in some cases no. There is a point where enough evidence has been collected that the only logically possible evidence that could occur to challenge an idea, involves practical absurdities.You people are playing too much on the tentativity of science. Indeed, you just keep repeating the same things over and over again, despite explanations of wher it comes from, how it is used, and counterexamples.Scientific methodology is used for a purpose, and investigates things which are not as clear as some cases of causation are. Especially at the gross level of human action. Both short paragraphs add up to a strawman and an argument from ignorance.You observe it in systems which have lower thresholds of information. It is like me judging that we can never have adequate justice systems by pointing out the mock courts of the spanish inquisition.That you argue we cannot improve systems because of past errors is indeed an argument against science and what went into building our nation. A court ruled on a basis of evidence that she was in fact brain damaged such that she was unlikely to recover, and that she had communicated a wish (at some place and time) not to live like that, and so ordered her killed.I am trying to figure out how you and jar do not see the complete parallel between that and a court ruling on a basis of evidence that a person did something at some place and time.Yeah I'll bet you guys don't want to discuss it. It's called a dodge.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You did the reading? Good then what is the connection between scientific theories and every day knowledge? Do you need a scientific theory to tie your shoes, to realize that it is your wife you are looking at?Oh wait, that's right. You don't answer any question that might challenge your position such as the very direct point I made regarding the difference between PE and whether Gould wrote about PE in support of evolutionary theory.You have conflated scientific theorizing past its intended borders and what's worse adopted creationist scientific methodology as a necessity to conflate metaphysical logical possibility to viable plausible theory.But I guess you know that since you read everything.In any case, yes you can still use induction. The rules are tighter and they can be matched in the real world for many things, objects of scientific discovery are usually not one of them. No really they are one liners. When I give you concrete examples to address, and you ignore them, then rethrow your original statement at me, they are nothing at all. Its called ad nauseum. It is a logical fallacy (look it up). It neither makes your case, and in general usually points to a failure (and even a self acknowledged failure) in your argument.The fact that you refuse to answer simple and direct questions which are on topic, to throw glib choose this or this statements at me, is not really impressive. You cannot tell if Dahmer killed anyone? You cannot tell if Gould published papers on PE in support of ToE? You cannot theorize a hypothetical situation where you actually have knowledge of a murder?We can tell the difference. We have been able to tell the difference. Metaphysical tentativity is a possibility, but is useless in practice. That's what scientists discovered years and years ago. But I guess we can all close our eyes now and go to sleep.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

If you ever wondered why fundies would come on and slap each other on the back over the most absurd statements regarding the nature of science and scientific theories, you now have special insight.As for me, I still can't figure it out. What does it take to actively not answer a straightforward question, and simply repeat one's first position like a mantra?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well we already have the start of one system. Jar finally admitted that some realities which have actually happened might allow him to execute a person.For him it was that on top of all the evidence the "suspect" not only readily confesses, but actively wishes to have the death sentence imposed.Is that a level of evidence you are willing to accept?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You have misunderstood what that specific comment was related to. Not just one person has raised the point of intentional abuse of a system. There is certainly the ability of a vast conspiracy to abuse ANY system.If the problem is the possibility of someone getting killed because of extreme abuse of a system, then one begins to pull apart all human endeavour.Some of the most graphic examples (and they are much more numerous than frame-ups leading to death sentences) are police killing wholly innocent people. They actually do have the ability (the right) to kill people without every going through court. If the problem with the death penalty is even if we tighten it so no mistakes go through, intentional misconduct can, then what of the other instruments of state that share this power? There is a limit to the nature of unforseen evidence that can be granted as realistic, or practically possible. This is why I was trying to start with hypotheticals for which there would be no question that more info could surface, or alternatively real life examples where it is clear there could not be more info that could possibly be generated that would bear on the case.I am not the one refusing to even discuss a hypothetical and a real life case.I do not understand why that is being done by people who routinely skewer creos for that exact same behavior. It is obvious when creos do it. And it is obvious to me when anyone else does it, even if they are liberals clammering for a popular liberal cause.What's funny is I'd even be willing to accept living in a nation where everyone denounced the death penalty as undesirable (indeed I currently do). I am not lusting for blood and think society will collapse without it. My problem is the lies that antiDP people are surrounding themselves with to demonize anyone who supports it, as well as to prop up some figment of "scientific rationality" to their quite obviously subjective moral and political position. Not everything is science, and science is not meant to apply to everything. Indeed some rules of knowledge are necessarily tighter than modern science uses.Can you tell the difference between your knowledge of whether Gould's PE theory applies to real life, and whether Gould published papers on PE theory?So far I can't get a straight answer from crash. This is of course part of the line of reasoning underlying all of my opponent's positions on this issue.What this says is that rules of knowledge must scale according desirability of moral outcome. Think about that. That is exactly what it says.But the problem is this, it shows exactly where you have adopted the creo stance regarding knowledge.Okay so the one thing YOU would never be willing to wager is a person's life, and so if it is in the balance we throw out not just modern scientific methodology, but embrace a metaphysical view of knowledge much more open than that of creos. Where this happens is in courts and so we cannot have that in court... except of course when the life being wagered is someone fundies want kept alive.Well the one thing fundies are not willing to wager is the TRUTH, and more importantly the life of GOD (or their own souls). Thus if it is in the balance they expect us to throw out modern scientific methodology for older scientific methods which will grant their theories the same status as modern scientific theories.The fact is. just like people's lives, the TRUTH, can be sacrificed by embracing modern scientific methodology. They are absolutely 100% correct. That is something scientists accepted long ago, just like when they threw out the absolute incredulity of metaphysical tentativity (we can know nothing).Although you may feel superior to the fundies for thinking they can actually save souls, as if they are more important than lives, that is a subjective moral position, with the exact same epistemological nihilism we have been discussing in other threads.Think about it.Am I willing to risk one person's life on a tentative theory? No. It is only a stock dilemma that I'd have to. Not all knowledge is as tentative as a scientific theory.When it reaches the point that the only logically possible sources of future evidence which can refute my current model, involve Godlike beings, or ultra conspiracies (which in the end if that comes out then we do have someone to blame), then I feel pretty safe in saying, yeah I know it.We already have the makings of one system. Keeping the same general framework of courts that we have now, what if we required the suspect caught in the act, with several unrelated witnesses, and positive physical evidence, plus the person confesses to the crime and actively seeks the death penalty. In that case could you feel like you know?As for me... Dahmer did it, Gould published papers on PE, yet whether OJ is guilty or PE is correct is tentative. I believe the latter are true with all my heart and mind, but there are possible avenues for future contradictory evidence. What possible evidence could have come forward to refute his guilt, especially as he ended up admitting to his guilt?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You have conflated science well past its boundaries, and indeed are refuting the basic process of building scientific methodology. Answer the question. Can you tell the difference between whether PE is how nature works, and whether Gould wrote papers on PE?Do you have a husband or boyfriend? Please explain to me how all the evidence could possibly be wrong within this hypothetical case.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yeah this is my term. It does not have a precise definition. There may be a better one somewhere, but I am trying to keep this as simple as possible. Epistemology is already a mouthful.Let me try and run through this...Epistemology is the study of knowledge. It constructs rules regarding what knowledge is and on a more practical note, when we can say we know something.Science is the study of natural phenomenon. We see lightning for example and ask ourselves what that is, and maybe if there is a way to predict it, or perhaps control it.Ep helps Sci by constructing rules which help scientists examine theories as they relate to observed phenomena. As it developed science moved from deductive and rationalist based science to inductive and empirical based science.Part of this shift included some "testing" of empiricism, or really the limits of empirical knowledge, via hypothetical experiments. The same kind I am trying to get started here. DesCartes' "I think therefore I am" was one of the more famous starting points.What emerged is some pretty specific guidelines regarding admitting metaphysically possible theories into the realm of scientific theories. That is for PRACTICAL SCIENTIFIC PURPOSES... examining natural phenomena... some metaphysical possibilities were eliminated as open for study and/or placed lower down for study.Skepticism to the level we are seeing here, when lives are on the line, was firmly rejected as IMPRACTICAL for science, much less for everyday living. It goes even further to the absurd than rationalist/deductive reasoning in not helping us understand or KNOW something.The irony then, of how all of you are arguing from science to reject the very tenets of science, while at the same time in other threads bashing fundies for the same styke of reasoning when SOULS are on the line, is quite evident.In any case I just brought up the difference between science and every day life. The latter is what I am trying to get at with "practical certainty".As said before science cultivated rules for inclusion/exclusion of logical possibilities based on there observed and theorized practical utility to modelling natural phenomena. Thus there is a level of "practical certainty" within science, but we call these things "leading theories" or some such, and recognize that due to the nature of our methodology as well as THE SUBJECT UNDER STUDY, there may be more evidence available in the future and so one of the practical rules in science is an understood tentativity of those "practical scientific certainties".In every day life however, there are also "practical certainties" which are greater in certainty than those held by science to explain the hidden workings of natural phenomena. There is an inherent difference to the questions, did Gould write papers on PE, and does PE pertain to speciation in animals?Indeed to science things such as "did Gould write about PE" are not theories and may more accurately be called "absolute practical certainties". But again, I am using my own phrasing here.Of course it all depends on THE SUBJECT UNDER STUDY. If it were the 31st century, and someone asked if Gould wrote about PE, it may indeed require historical research which could only deliver tentative answers. But its not the 31st century and we can get some pretty straightforward answers. I can go to a library and find his works and find those who read his works and find his friends and family and yes there comes a point where any doubt about this is so implausible, despite being logically possible, that we can say our knowledge is a "practical certainty". It is not a scientific theory, it is epistemological knowledge, or if one wants to be really picky its still not knowledge (to some epistemologists) and so I used "certainty".To disbelieve one's understanding would NOT be practical. It would be impractical uncertainty.Let me circle back to the beginning then. A bunch of people (that will soon become scientists) look at the sky and ask each other what that lightning is about, and how did it light that tree on fire. The one thing they do not ask is was there lightning, was there a tree on fire?They were capable of living in the world without overt incredulity. Such as state can be enjoyable, but should remain in gentleman's parlors with a few brews or other heady substances about.In our court systems I feel safe in applying rational thought, and as we have already learned, there is a point where entertaining some logical possibilities is impractical, overt incredulity.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

What the hell are you talking about? You mean "give me untentative conclusion, or a tentative death sentence, which can you give me?"... or... "I don't have to talk about it if I don't want to"?That is an avoidance of my answers on both subjects. If you have read my posts to crash you will see I directly answered his statements regarding tentativity and why Schiavo is relevant.You are almost right however that my position has not changed. That is of course because I started with trying to use a gedanken experiment. You know that pesky thing which we use against creos sometimes to explain things.Only not one person will take part. The closest has been jar, whose only move toward it was admitting he'd accept it if the guy wanted to die.... revealing of course (if your assessment is true it is only because it is the guy's wishes) that his is a moral stance and has nothing to do with irreversibility.What is everyone scared of?Oh yeah, and now I am getting the filtering in of "if a life is in the balance I cannot admit to any knowledge". That's the exact position of the creos only there's is a soul that hangs in the balance. Either case is using a priori metaphysical and moral positions to drive epistemological rules and NOT using accepted epistemological rules to make metaphysical or moral decisions.Don't you guys understand that?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)