Trolling techniques

quote:

---

OJ Simpson was convicted at a civil trial in a wrongful death action.

---

Just to picky - and I want to learn something new today - was he convicted or found liable? In a civil case in the US, can one be found guilty? Was this just a slip-up (we all make them) or am I missing something?

quote:

---

I believe they still use the phrase "not proven" for verdicts in the UK so as not to confuse people into thinking that just because something is not proven, the theory of innocence is proven.

---

In Scotland yes, not in England and Wales, or Northern Ireland. In former times, the Scottish criminal jurisdiction returned only two verdicts - proven and not proven. Proven became Guilty to be in line with England, and Not Guilty was introduced for more clarity. Guilty = He certainly did it. Not Guilty = He certainly did not do it. Not proven = It was not proven that he did it.

quote:

---

crashfrog: Legal courts of law - jury trial, any kind of trial - are inherently unsuitable for the anlysis of scientific evidence because of their authority.

​

Attorney: This is also incorrect. You wouldn't have much luck convincing any lawyer, judge, or jury with this false assertion. But maybe you are right, and the entire legal community is wrong.

---

This comes back to something I posted - that the legal system is only suitable for judging within its own parameters.Given an arbitrary set of parameters, the legal system does a good job, to my mind, of judging the application of scientific evidence to the consideration of issues within its purview and within the arbitrary rules it sets up for itself - with a fundamental bias to the argument from authority.But science doesn't work that way; no clear purview, no arbitrary rules, no definitive judgements; just a constant, ever-revising, ever-challenged empirical search for the best explanation. Not the the best of two explanations provided by opposing sides, not the best explanation which the judge allows to be led, not the best explanation from evidence permissable under an imposed set of rules; just striving for the best explanation.That, I think, is what crashfrog was getting at. cf - correct me if I've misundertood you.[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 05-07-2003]

As Mr. P says, civil courts don't convict, but rather find liable. A rather glaring error for "Attorney At Law", don't you think? Of course, if civil court can convict I'll need that assertation supported from a peer-reviewed legal journal. (Who do I sound like now, I wonder?) True - but it is analysed in a narrow context of relevance to a particular statement of legal fault or culpability, as well as the reliability of the evidence itself with regard to the methodology of its collection. Scientific evidence is never analyzed with respect to the greater generalizations that scientific theory represents.The mere existence of your scientific experts is proof of that. Scientists are brought in to put the evidence (which is avaliable to all) in the context of greater scientific theory - something a lay jury is not qualified to do, generally.You still have yet to address my greater assertion - how can a legal court, with it's heightened restrictions on the admissability of evidence, the inability to revisit "confirmed" conclusions, and a jury not of trained professionals but of laypersons, be considered a superior - or even equal - method of gathering knowledge about reality than the scientific method?Legal courtroom procedures have no bearing on scientific discourse. Therefore judging scientific theories through legal means is just playing word games. What form would a "courtroom trial" of the theory of evolution take, anyway? I'd like your thoughts on this, Mr. Attorney.

Let's consult a credible legal source. How about http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/...s/pdf/v03/03HarvJLTech223.pdfWhere it says in the 1st paragraph

quote:

---

In recent years there has been much discussion of the use of scientific evidence in the courtroom. Parties increasingly ask the courts to admit the testimony of research scientists...and other technically trained people. Paralleling this increased demand for the admission of scientific evidence is a growing awareness that current legal methods of reviewing and weighing such evidence are insufficient and should be reconsidered.

---

And goes on to quote Frye v United States, as follows:

quote:

---

Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define. Somewhere in this twighlight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognised, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well recognised scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.

---

IOW legally admissible scientific evidence is a subset of scientific knowledge, membership of which is determined by scientists for jurists.Much of the rest of the paper is a beginner's course in the theory and techniques of DNA fingerprinting.It is fitting, 'Attorney at Law', that you should be posting in a thread with this title, as you have shown some skill as a troll in the past. Continued repetition of the same themes is always boring, however, and you will have to raise your game considerably before I bite again.

Mike says:

quote:

---

it doesn't mean the ONE reason couldn't be scientific , all i was asking for was something i could understand .
ok here it is (i'm not super intelligent) there i've admitted it , what more do you want.

---

Mike, why don't you go to the Booboocruise's Dissolvable Best Evidence thread and read my message #13 and the subseuent discussion. You might learn something and it might stop you issuing pointless challenges in the future.

Attorney,

quote:

---

I believe they still use the phrase "not proven" for verdicts in the UK so as not to confuse people into thinking that just because something is not proven, the theory of innocence is proven.

---

I stand to be corrected, but I believe this applies to Scottish law only, in England & Wales you are either guilty or not guilty, much the same as in the States.Scottish law has many sanities that English law eschews, ask anyone that has been "gazumped" (had your offer on a property purchase bettered after acceptance by the seller. The seller is able to then accept the new offer. The consequense of this is that the person who has been "gazumped" has already shelled out thousands in solicitor fees, surveyors, etc. In Scotland to accept an offer is contractually binding) but IMHO, this isn't one of them.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Well, let's try this.The Theory of Evolution explains why different animals have physical similarity. Even whales have little tiny leg bones and a tiny pelvis. What could explain these similarities? Perhaps that whales share ancestry with land animals, as proposed by the theory of evolution?Now, before you go off and say "isn't that evidence of common design, not ancestry?", consider this. Designers design things specifically for their environment, with a minimum of useless parts. Booboocruise likes to say something like "The lug nuts from a Chevy will fit onto a Pontiac, because they have a common designer." But we're not talking about two different kinds of cars. All cars do the same thing - drive on asphalt surfaces - so it's not unusual for their designers to have arrived at similar designs.But if the lug nuts from a Chevy - or better yet, the suspension - was found on a submarine, where it would have no purpose, which is more likely? That the same guy designed both - or that the submarine was constructed by modifying a Chevy? That is, the submarine and the Chevy have a common "ancestor"?People don't design submarines with useless parts. A designer god wouldn't have used a land-animal body to create sea life. It doesn't make sense.The point of all this is that similarity between organisms is evidence for common ancestry, which the theory of evolution predicts.I hope that was simple enough for you. You may not consider it indisputable evidence, but that's probably because I've had to leave a whole lot out to be sure that you could understand the reasoning without a science background. Doubtless some of the biologists here have much to add; doubtless some of the creationists will attack my analogy.Ultimately, if you want real answers, you're going to have to delve into some science. If you really want to know, ask questions. We'll be patient (I will, anyway) as long as it appears you really want to know and aren't just being a crank. (That happens sometimes.) Feel free to ask away. (You might want to start some new topics, though.)

FINALLY , 2 DAYS LATER someone has the sense to answer my question.
Thanks crashfrog , that was logical , and didn't attack me as a creation believer. i didn't no this information about whales , and it is an interesting subject .
Although i dont believe in evolution doesn't mean i'm not willing to listen to interesting points.

mike the wiz,I would also add:1/ The extensior coccygis muscle in humans that connects to the sacrum to........ the sacrum. Muscles that connect to the skeleton have one purpose, to articulate it. In many other mammals the "sacrum" is actually mobile & forms the tail. The EC muscle allows that tail to be extended. Why would a designer add a muscle (not present in all people) to extend fused vertebrae?2/ Whale embryos (some) possess hind limbs, all over body hair, & in the case of baleen whales, teeth. Why, if they are not required?3/ Similarly, anteaters are toothless from birth onwards, yet anteater embryos possess teeth that are absorbed later in development. Why, if they are not needed, an embryo is fed via the umbilical, not its alimentary canal (gut-mouth to backside & everything inbetween)?MarkMark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Mike t W, I wouldn't expect you to be convinced by one such point however "interesting". However, there are a huge number of such "interesting points". It is the sum of them all that is overwhelmingly convincing. These are across a number of areas of science.

This topic is turning into a collection of messages of various topics, many of them very good, but off-topic.Please also see my message at message 27, of the "Retire Free For Fall Forum?" topic.Adminnemooseus

Opened new topic to field any basic questions Mike the Wiz or anybody might have about evolution or science in general. Avaliable here.

I think I remember Candyman...he was the one who claimed he studied microbiology and therefore knows a lot about Drosophila

. FYI: Scientific evidence is analyzed every day in courts of law all over the land. Many scientists are actually experts whose sole job is to testify about scientific evidence!M: So is the scientific evidence "analyzed" by the court or do scientists testify and the court accepts what they say as "experts"?Show an example of analysis of a scientific experiment by jury trial...should be easy since you claim it happens every day.

quote:

---

Just to picky - and I want to learn something new today - was he convicted or found liable? In a civil case in the US, can one be found guilty? Was this just a slip-up (we all make them) or am I missing something?

---

I used the term "conviction" to mean "the final judgment on a verdict" (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition), and I apologize for using the term so loosely. However, it does appear that its intended meaning was received in that OJ was indeed retried on the same facts and found culpable for the deaths by a Jury Verdict, contrary to Crashfrog's assertion. The civil verdict certainly didn't put the rubber stamp of approval on "murder", although I believe the victim's families felt some sort of vindication and considered the verdict a public recognition of his guilt. Many others do as well, notwithstanding the highly technical legal jargon.I would also agree that the term "conviction" is mostly reserved for criminal cases, but can also apply to civil cases. For example, civil traffic infractions (speeding) can often result in convictions, and adjudications of guilt appearing on your driving record.Whether in the U.S. one can be found "guilty" in a civil case in any of the 50 States is an interesting question and one I simply don't know the answer to if you mean something other than civil traffic infractions. To that end, one would have to obtain the 50 copies of the authorized verdict forms issued by the Supreme Court of each State (also Federal Verdict Forms) and/or Judgment and Sentence forms and then analyze the language. I wouldn't be surprised if at least one official verdict form or Judgment and Sentence contained the word "conviction", which may be technically erroneous as you pointed out, and I wouldn't be surprised if the same forms did not include the objectionable language.Sometimes words are chosen simply to convey a meaning most efficiently. The term "settlement" is another one that can be utilized in both the civil and criminal arenas. Although, in technical legal jargon, "settlement" only applies in the context of a civil action, but a murderer that pled to manslaughter might indeed have good cause to believe he obtained a favorable "settlement" on the case. I would even use the term "settlement" for the purpose of explaining the concepts better. And I wouldn't care if I was technically incorrect so long as my client understood my message in the language most familiar to him.I forgot you sat on a jury once. But the average joe most likely would be unfamiliar with the subtle distinctions."Given an arbitrary set of parameters"Parameters are clearly defined, you'll have to explain your point better.'the legal system does a good job, to my mind, of judging the application of scientific evidence'That was my point."to the consideration of issues within its purview"Or, more accurately, the issue presently before the court."and within the arbitrary rules it sets up for itself"Again, not arbitrary at all. You'll have to expand on why it is you believe the rules (which ones btw?) are arbitrary."with a fundamental bias to the argument from authority."What authority?"But science doesn't work that way; no clear purview, no arbitrary rules, no definitive judgements; just a constant, ever-revising, ever-challenged empirical search for the best explanation. Not the the best of two explanations provided by opposing sides, not the best explanation which the judge allows to be led, not the best explanation from evidence permissable under an imposed set of rules; just striving for the best explanation."And that's exactly how scientific evidence is portrayed in the courtroom, except for the arbitrary part. Scientific experts testify to all the above and elucidate the concepts you hold important to the jury or judge. Thus, no worries that science won't be honored in the courtroom.

Opened new topic to field any basic questions Mike the Wiz or anybody might have about evolution or science in generalthanks crash only i cant reply or ask questions in this new topic as i am still waiting to become a member , if they send me a password i'll take part.