Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,452 Year: 6,709/9,624 Month: 49/238 Week: 49/22 Day: 4/12 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Trolling techniques
nator
Member (Idle past 2422 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 61 of 66 (39378)
05-08-2003 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by mike the wiz
05-06-2003 7:55 PM


quote:
i probably can't and i admitt this because frankly all that stuff is above me ,
Then maybe it's time you started to do some studying on the subject, eh?
How can you compltely reject a major foundation of modern life science without understanding it at all?
quote:
however if you go to genesis which i first read when i was about ten and did understand it, i'm sure you'll agree the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
"Simple" and "simplistic" are not synonyms.
Look it up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by mike the wiz, posted 05-06-2003 7:55 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by mike the wiz, posted 05-08-2003 1:55 PM nator has not replied

Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7830 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 62 of 66 (39398)
05-08-2003 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Mr. Attorney
05-08-2003 8:29 AM


quote:
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
Thanks for the honest answer - I appreciate it. The intended meaning was clear enough in context, it was the term itself that I wondered at.
The term "civil conviction" does appear in the law in the UK but it is used in courts martial for what we would call in common speech "civilian convictions." I believe the same usage is common in US Courts Martial.
BTW, the general feeling in Scotland at the time was that OJ was a classical candidate for not proven. In fact, he still provides a good populist example for those who defend the continued use of the not proven verdict. It was pretty clear from his trial that the prosecution had not proven their case beyond reasonable doubt - much of the evidence was pretty compelling, but there was clearly room for at least some doubt, cleverly handled by his defence. Without not proven the only alternative is inot guilty[/i], which, in this case, also seemed unsatisfactory.
Are traffic violations civil delicts in the US? That's interesting. One thing I have been surprised at over here is how easy people find it to get off with speeding tickets compared to the UK. Not lighter punishments, but actually having the ticket quashed. Given the standard of proof in civil cases is lower than in criminal, you would think that would make it harder to have the ticket quashed, no? The implication is that the police here are not even gathering a preponderance of evidence - that can't reflect well on them!
quote:
Pamboli: Given an arbitrary set of parameters
AaL: Parameters are clearly defined, you'll have to explain your point better
My turn to apologize for being unclear! Arbitrary is perhaps too negative a word, but my point is this: the clear rules by which the legal system operates are imposed as rules. For example, those who spend time in the criminal or civil courts sooner or later come across situations where evidence cannot be led for technicalities - invalid search warrants, for example. These rules are essential to the justice system, but science is more empirical. The rules may be repeatability, falsifiability (if you follow Popper), inductive logic and so on, but they are not codified - there is no body which administers them or determines them. Even peer review does not come close to being a legalistic framework for assessing science. There are no bodies to determine what is scientifically valid; and, as Huxley said, No bell rings when Science has found the truth.
quote:
Pamboli: to the consideration of issues within its purview
AaL: Or, more accurately, the issue presently before the court.
In this case, there was some value in my precise wording, as there is a limit to what can be brought before a court. One of the curious things about asking if a scientific theory could stand up in court is wondering how it would find itself there!
The revolution of the earth around the sun, is not in itself, as a scientific theory, within the purview of a court - at least not in the UK. (Who knows what they could lead in the US!) A court would not sit in judgement of whether the earth revolved around the sun. What may be in the purview of the court could be a case to which the truth or falsity of a theory would be germane.
quote:
Pamboli: with a fundamental bias to the argument from authority.
AaL: What authority?
I believe the system in the US is basically the same as in the UK, that scientific evidence is presented in court by expert witnesses (authorities) whose authority is typically established and relied upon. I believe the US takes this further and has some case law (Daubert) that determines that peer-reviewed journals provide suitably authoritative means of establishing a certain baseline of acceptance for what may be a novel scientific approach. Is this right?
Either way, the court works from the authority of its expert witnesses and does not perform empirical science itself. Having sat through too many civil cases with too much technical evidence led by expert witnesses I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard the phrase Is it your opinion that ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Mr. Attorney, posted 05-08-2003 8:29 AM Mr. Attorney has not replied

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 247 days)
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 63 of 66 (39404)
05-08-2003 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by nator
05-08-2003 10:17 AM


How can you compltely reject a major foundation of modern life science without understanding it at all?
you mis read , i said i could n't come up with a theory as good because its 'above me' as in too scientific, but this is pages away,where have you been?
i do understand a bit about evolution though , i just dont believe it, comprende!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by nator, posted 05-08-2003 10:17 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by crashfrog, posted 05-08-2003 2:16 PM mike the wiz has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1719 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 64 of 66 (39407)
05-08-2003 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by mike the wiz
05-08-2003 1:55 PM


Well, dude, ask the questions and you shall learn! I for one relish the chance to explain the theory of evolution to a layperson, to the limit of my ability as a non-scientist... perhaps as a kind of layperson myself, we can communicate better.
I'm sorry you're having trouble with the registration... feel free to start a topic in the visitor board if you like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by mike the wiz, posted 05-08-2003 1:55 PM mike the wiz has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1719 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 65 of 66 (40267)
05-15-2003 1:51 PM


Bump
Hello? Mr. Attorney?
Did you have any response to Mr. P's points or can we assume you have no interest in defending legalistic nonsense? Or did you have arguments to support the artifical rules of law as a framework for assessing science?
Also I'd like to know under what circumstances you think the ToE could be brought to trial.

Agent Uranium [GPC]
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 66 (48564)
08-04-2003 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by NosyNed
05-01-2003 8:51 PM


Re: Some suggestions
Newbies, shouldn't post at all for at least a few days (I went about a month before I did).
Just an addendum to this - newbies to debating should follow your advice here.
Obviously observing for a while verses you in EvC's conventions & rules, but a newbie to a forum doesn't automatically equate with a newbie to disciplined debate.
, 08-04-2003

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 05-01-2003 8:51 PM NosyNed has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024