Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!news.mixmin.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Anonymous Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: How Do We Know? Date: Sun, 5 May 2024 01:04:57 -0400 Organization: Mixmin Message-ID: References: <3u4r2j9di28cu3ll0uq8sir8esofchhbs8@4ax.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sun, 5 May 2024 05:05:27 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: news.mixmin.net; posting-host="c4af4a3027e8317d29ea238d8aa6bb2f616aa3fc"; logging-data="905364"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@mixmin.net" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 3739 Lines: 63 X, formerly known as "!Jones" wrote: > If this is a medical emergency, stop reading, log off, and dial 911! > >> X, formerly known as "!Jones" wrote: >>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 17:57:20 -0400, in talk.politics.guns Anonymous >>> wrote: >>> >>>> X, formerly known as "!Jones" wrote: >>>>> Definition: >>>>> A *finder of fact* shall be defined as an impartial panel of one or >>>>> more persons designated by the legislative process and sworn under >>>>> oath of office to appraise and publish as a public record the facts >>>>> underlying a particular event or legal matter. A finder of fact >>>>> employs the scientific method >>>> >>>> ...which is incapable of being the sole arbiter of truth. Even when >>>> used properly, it can't even produce consistent scientific evidence. >>> >>> Over simplifying a bit: The scientific method of hypothesis testing >>> means assuming the hypothesis is false, then working to reject that >>> assumption. It is the basis for scientific thought and our legal >>> system. >> >> The legal system is not based on the scientific method. In court, >> scientific evidence is considered less reliable than eyewitness >> and documentary evidence. > > You misunderstand. The "scientific method" is a paradigm for testing > a hypothesis. This is not related to "eyewitness [or] documentary > evidence". Essentially, you state your hypothesis: > > Eg: > --> The defendent is guilty. > --> The election was rigged. > --> The coin is not a "fair coin" (double heads, I guess). > > Then, state a "null hypothesis" that logically complements the > original: > > Eg: > --> The defendent is innocent. > --> The election was fair and accurate. > --> The coin *is* a "fair coin". > > Under what conditions would you reject the null hypothesis? Suppose I > flipped it ten times and it landed heads each time... would you > reject? At some point, you would say: "OK, OK... enough!" > > Now, you didn't *prove* that it wasn't a fair coin; you rejected the > null hypothesis that it was. Should you have tossed it 1,000 times > and come up with 500 heads and 500 tails, you do *not* accept the null > hypothesis; you fail to reject it. > > Our legal system very definitely runs on the scientific method. The > defense does not prove anyone is innocent... that's the null > hypothesis. The state has to cause the finder of fact (jury, I > suppose) to reject that hypothesis. > > This is why I can accurately state that "self defense" has never been > proven because, in a finding of "not guilty", nothing is proven. > Using that method of proof, prove that you exist, and that you should be allowed to continue existing, despite being a gun control advocate.