Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nobel Prize vs Proof that the Death Penalty MUST kill innocents
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 91 of 236 (199003)
04-13-2005 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Ben!
04-13-2005 3:36 PM


How do you know?
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.
Anyway, why don't you outline your practically infallible system anyway?
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.
I think you have to show us such a system in order to justify this premise.
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.
One more thing.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Ben!, posted 04-13-2005 3:36 PM Ben! has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by crashfrog, posted 04-13-2005 4:47 PM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 92 of 236 (199005)
04-13-2005 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Silent H
04-13-2005 4:35 PM


But more than that, people have to be able to admit they use rules of knowledge and can actually decide that something is certain.
So then why are conclusions of science tentative? Why can't we be certain, for instance, that evolution is right?
That they know something so clearly that it is impractical, to absurd to deny its truth.
Absurd, impractical, yes. But not impossible.
Sorry, close but no cigar. If we're going to have the state kill people, and be beyond accountability for it, then I want the elimination of even the absurd and impractical doubt. Or else I want a tentative death penalty.
Which of those two can you provide?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Silent H, posted 04-13-2005 4:35 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Silent H, posted 04-13-2005 5:32 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 93 of 236 (199008)
04-13-2005 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by crashfrog
04-13-2005 4:22 PM


Look, I guess I just don't get it.
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).
Your system that excludes innocent people from being executed allows for mistakes? Huh?
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.
This seems like such a rational position that its ludicrous to see you disagree with it.
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.
If its always unacceptable for a state to wrongly execute someone, then we have to ensure that never happens. Thus, the death penalty must be eliminated.
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.
It's iron-clad.
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.
If you believe that, sometimes, its ok for the state to wrongly execute someone, like in the case where despite the man being innocent, an astronomical burden of evidence has been met, then I guess we can discuss that.
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.
But there's simply no disputing that a human system of justice that allows the death penalty is going to lead to people being executed for crimes that they did not, in reality, commit.
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.
You haven't, as far as I can see, disputed that. So what are we arguing about?
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by crashfrog, posted 04-13-2005 4:22 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by crashfrog, posted 04-13-2005 5:48 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 94 of 236 (199014)
04-13-2005 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by crashfrog
04-13-2005 4:47 PM


So then why are conclusions of science tentative? Why can't we be certain, for instance, that evolution is right?
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.
then I want the elimination of even the absurd and impractical doubt. Or else I want a tentative death penalty.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by crashfrog, posted 04-13-2005 4:47 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by crashfrog, posted 04-13-2005 5:58 PM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 95 of 236 (199022)
04-13-2005 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Silent H
04-13-2005 5:14 PM


Where is the logical argument that death penalty must result in innocent people getting killed?
The only way we know someone is guilty is as a tentative conclusion from finite evidence. There's no way to know about the evidence we don't have, so the conclusion cannot be better than tentative.
Now, that doesn't prove that innocent people must die, but it does prove that we can't know they can't. Prudence dictates that we proceed from the assumption that some guilty people are actually innocent.
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.
Clearly the sort of mistake we're referring to is possible; we know that it is because we observe it happening. It's never been the case that a prisoner was accidentally executed by the state - as opposed to murdered by wardens/guards/prisoners/whatever.
Clearly the sort of mistake we're talking about is possible because we see it happen. It's ludicrous to suggest that a system no different from the one we have now is going to be free of the same mistakes.
Also, why are you dodging me on the schiavo issue?
I don't see that it's relevant. It's not a dodge; I'm not interested in discussing it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Silent H, posted 04-13-2005 5:14 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Silent H, posted 04-14-2005 9:01 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 96 of 236 (199025)
04-13-2005 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Silent H
04-13-2005 5:32 PM


If you are serious with this question then you need to do more reading on the subject.
I've done the reading; I know the answer. The reason scientific conclusions are always tentative is because scientific reasoning is inherently fallacious. All science is based on induction, and the only way to validate induction is by induction.
Well, sorry. That works for making VCR's, but when we're talking about killing a completely healthy human being, with his full faculties and a full quality of life, I'd like a little better than that.
Like I said I want either elimination of unreasonable doubt or a tentative death penalty. Which does your system deliver?
Nice. Keep coming with the quick one liners.
You mistake them. They're not one-liners for you to ignore; they're succinct rebuttals of your position for you to address.
The only way to eliminate the problem is to either base the conclusion on non-fallacious, non-inductive grounds, or to provide for a tentative death penalty. Which does your system deliver?
If you want the elimination of even the most absurd, then you are arguing for the aburd.
Yeah. I want either an absurd level of certainly before my state starts taking lives, or else I want a tentative, reversable death penalty. Which one are you giving me?
yet have pity on raging maniacs who openly kill and are proud of it.
It's the innocent I have pity on, not the guilty. Since we're not sure we can tell the difference, prudence dictates that we take the death penalty off the table.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Silent H, posted 04-13-2005 5:32 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by nator, posted 04-13-2005 7:51 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 107 by Silent H, posted 04-14-2005 9:15 AM crashfrog has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 97 of 236 (199034)
04-13-2005 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Silent H
04-13-2005 4:07 AM


Re: Are you sure?
I think you already have your hands full already (2 pages in a couple hours-ha). I'm gonna sit out and watch on this one.
ABE
That is unless you really really want me to continue.
This message has been edited by Troy, 04-13-2005 05:15 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Silent H, posted 04-13-2005 4:07 AM Silent H has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 98 of 236 (199060)
04-13-2005 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by crashfrog
04-13-2005 5:58 PM


I love you, Crashfrog, with all my heart, for your magnificent participation in this thread.
When I say, "I love you", it's in the platonic sense, as Zhimbo is standing behind me as I write this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by crashfrog, posted 04-13-2005 5:58 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Silent H, posted 04-14-2005 9:18 AM nator has not replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 99 of 236 (199066)
04-13-2005 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Silent H
04-13-2005 4:08 PM


Holmes, I've been lurking on this thread, and must say that I find your position baffling - or rather, you failure to understand the opposing position is baffling. When you say things like this
Unless you are arguing for the cessation of all human activity it does not.
You're completely misconstruing what people are saying.
Adhering to the principle of "provisional knowledge" does NOT mean that you cannot do anything, because you cannot achieve perfect certainty. It means that at some future point, additional unforeseen evidence may cause us to revise our beliefs.
Think of Gould's famous definition of fact - "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." That's what is "certain" in science. But it's stil provisional.
Let's put it this way, in practical terms...If it was possible to get the "God" answer on the topic, I would bet my life vs. $100 that evolution (e.g., common descent) is The Truth.
But I would NEVER, EVER, bet someone else's life. Not even Dahmer's.
Think about that previous line...there is, in fact, NOTHING I would EVER bet someone else's life on. Nothing.
Would you?
Judging from this thread, I would have to guess your answer is "yes". For your opponents, it's "no".
I think it all boils down to that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Silent H, posted 04-13-2005 4:08 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Silent H, posted 04-14-2005 9:55 AM Zhimbo has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 100 of 236 (199077)
04-13-2005 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by contracycle
04-13-2005 10:44 AM


Re: form the other thread...
no, i'm serious. the likelihood of one actually getting a jury of one's peers and those people not simply wanting a coliseum spectacle is rare. if you're innocent and you think the facts will show this, take a judge trial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by contracycle, posted 04-13-2005 10:44 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by contracycle, posted 04-14-2005 7:17 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 101 of 236 (199131)
04-14-2005 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
04-12-2005 5:38 AM


Holmes,
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 really do understand where you're coming from. I'm not interested in belaboring the point... just to tell you why I'm uneasy in accepting it. For the sake of argument, I think it's worthwhile to accept and see where you go with it. I think, in this case, more can be done with concrete examples than with high-level discussion.
That said, what bothers me is that there's just so many ways to go wrong. Data collection can go wrong. Testimony can go wrong. Etc.
But even more scary to me, science is not governed just by logic. In general, hypotheses are not produced from a confined set of logical possibilities. What if Einstein never rode his light beam? We wouldn't have relativity theory? Hypotheses often come about from "inspiration," and not from iteration through sets of logical possibilities. In general it's just not possible to iterate--there's too many possibilities.
The reason this is scary to me is because, what if we simply didn't "think of" the "other" theory that explains the data? Who's to say that there's no other practical possibilities?
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.
I understand. It's not working out, and I'm still interested in the topic of the thread. There's two premises, and I'd really like to explore the first (IF we can have practically certain knowledge, then we can construct a practically infallable death penalty system). I'm interested because I want to see what system you can construct. I want to see how practically certain knowledge is gathered, how this practically certain knowledge is used, and how a practical system can be used to maintain the high fidelty necessary for sending someone to death.
Not to get ahead of myself, but there is one practical issue I think is worth addressing immediately. I THINK you've been saying that your system doesn't have to be free of corruption, etc., since that's not a property of your system, but of all systems in general? I think that's not quite right. Since the death penalty is final, no turning back, then issues of corruption that are "acceptable" (due to the lower consequence) in other systems become unacceptable in a death penalty system. I'm really interested to see what ideas you have for removing the many pitfalls that can happen along the way, from data gathering to conviction, sentencing, encarceration, and imprisonment. I mean it, I'm really interested to hear what's on your mind.
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.
Just that, in your OP, you briefly outlined a system for constructing practical knowledge that, for illustrative purposes was OK, but seemed like it simply never would happen. I think having a situation where there's all these confessions, finding people in the act, video, so many witnesses, all for a crime of such severity is just like your "implausible" scenarios that you want to exclude.
A person is caught during the act of murder, or while trying to escape from the scene, with several direct witnesses, as well as concrete physical evidence tying him to the murder (weapon on him, evidence from scene on him, videotape of him at scene killing people), plus a confession from the person.
I mean, has this ever actually happened for a crime of such severity that it would warrant the death penalty? It just seems so implausible for crimes such as double-murder, etc.
I just want to make sure that when you construct your actual practical system of acquiring practically certain knowledge that there are plausible instances where practically certain knowledge can be acquired. I also wanted to make sure that when implementing your practical system for the death penalty, that there are plausible instances when somebody could actually be killed.
Just a concern, not a gripe. I know you were trying to come up with the "most obvious" scenario to get an agreement from others as easily as possible.
Anyway, I hope you're interested in continuing this thread in the vein that I've outlined here. I really want to hear your ideas. We (figuratively) are stuck on one premise, but the other is still interesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 5:38 AM Silent H has not replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 2908 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 102 of 236 (199141)
04-14-2005 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Silent H
04-13-2005 4:08 PM


Fortunes to be made
"There's no system we can build that is failure-proof, apparently."
Actually there is to all but the most absurd metaphysical and conspiratorial possibilities.
Where can we find one of these failure-proof systems?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Silent H, posted 04-13-2005 4:08 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Silent H, posted 04-14-2005 9:21 AM tsig has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 236 (199171)
04-14-2005 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by AdminJar
04-13-2005 12:27 PM


Re: Your post is unneeded and did nothing to advance the discussion
quote:
There was no reason for the personal attack on another poster.
Well there was CERTAINLY no reason for an attack on ordinary jurors other than outright snobberry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by AdminJar, posted 04-13-2005 12:27 PM AdminJar has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 236 (199172)
04-14-2005 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by macaroniandcheese
04-13-2005 8:40 PM


Re: form the other thread...
quote:
no, i'm serious. the likelihood of one actually getting a jury of one's peers and those people not simply wanting a coliseum spectacle is rare. if you're innocent and you think the facts will show this, take a judge trial.
Right. Most people seek to avouid the disruption of jury duty, it is not a coliseum spectacle. You are making wholly baseless assumptions about "the commoners" like any good aristo.
Having done jury duty myself, it was one of the most human and indeed even reassuring experiences I've ever had. I had not though a random sampling of the pupulation could produce as high a degree of diuscussion as we did - and I barely got a word in edgewise.
Juries remain the bulwark of the free against the self-righteous and self-important elitists we have to suffer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-13-2005 8:40 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-14-2005 10:08 AM contracycle has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 236 (199173)
04-14-2005 7:20 AM


Lao Tsu said, "Like sharp fish, the weapons of the state should be kept beneath the surface."

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024