Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!news.mixmin.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Anonymous <anon@anon.net>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: How Do We Know?
Date: Sun, 5 May 2024 01:04:57 -0400
Organization: Mixmin
Message-ID: <v17422$rk4k$2@news.mixmin.net>
References: <cm8q2jtl07i443hrnb2us5og9k59c12r55@4ax.com>
 <v0jsc1$34lrm$1@news.mixmin.net> <3u4r2j9di28cu3ll0uq8sir8esofchhbs8@4ax.com>
 <v0sde0$3rkpp$1@news.mixmin.net> <d4m73jdbcr0infv3qr9dlogn2tunvr5t5t@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: <d4m73jdbcr0infv3qr9dlogn2tunvr5t5t@4ax.com>
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
>>> <anon@anon.net> 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.