Trolling techniques

Wordswordsman was a bit different as he did not post under multiple IDs. In addition, when I pushed him to support his argument and presented evidence supporting evolution his defense was to claim I was an evil sorcerer and that it went against his religion to communicate with me. Shortly thereafter he bailed out of the forum.
I vaguely recall that you had a similar experience with Wordy A more apt comparison with appletoast/ten-sai/zephan/inquisitor would be Jet.

And Inquistor has a new name A Jury does not interpret law. They are simply the fact finders. Only judges interpret the law, and this is done outside the presence of the jury. Their roles do not overlap.M: Oh really...the jury are the fact finders?..you sure about that?Inquisi-clone:
That said, a Jury Trial is not a system for interpreting the law as you believe. In fact, it is a well-established methodology for determining evidence for or against a specified theory, and is the most reliable mechanism in place today for ascertaining the truth of an alleged past event or fact (unless you can propose a better mechanism for determining the truth of a past event). That is the entire purpose of the Jury Trial.M: A better mechanism is the scientific method including proposing a hypothesis, gathering evidence in support, generating evidence by experimentation, doing the same using science of different disciplines and seeing if said hypothesis needs revision or retraction. Data contradicting the hypothesis must be addressed and not merely argued around. Does the hypothesis have predictive value?Hypotheses that are supported by evidence from multiple sources become theories. Those that do not are discarded. All are tentative as is all science. Another key aspect of science, particularly in evaluating supporting evidence, is that it must be reproducible...when not it is fetted out and discarded...look up Hendrik Schn who was recently shown to have fabricated his data in multiple publications..his experiments were never reproducible.Finally, science is a continuous process where theories are constantly tested and revised as new information comes in...general acceptance of a theory is not the end of the matter. Not so for a jury trial.A jury trial is entirely unsuitable in addressing the validity of scientific questions....or if you are not Inquistor/appletoast/ten-sai/zephan..would you care to take a stab in showing us how a jury trial could "prove" the theory of relativity? How about epigenetics?..or how about an easy one..epistasis?looking forward to it [This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 05-07-2003]

Hey crashfrog, you seem to be the darling of the EvC "legal" community

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.