Rich Cooper wrote:
> These discussions don't seem to be bound by
> realistic constraints which exist in all systems
> of fact.
>
> In my experience, courts of law are most
> effectively organized to represent facts in a way
> that "the great unwashed" (sic) can either accept
> or reject.
> (01)
Frankly, I think this is a red herring. The purpose of a court is to
deliver "justice" in the sense that some part of the populace brings a
person or persons to account for wrongdoing. The only "fact" of
interest is whether there is enough evidence for the authorized decision
makers (judge(s) and/or jury) to conclude that there was wrongdoing by
the person(s) in question. (02)
"Evidence" is what leads one to believe something. It was originally
what we perceived by our senses, but in a court of law, it degenerates
into the reports of what others have sensed or their interpretations of
what they sensed. It is philosophically rather less than satisfying,
but, as systems for determining "truth" go, it is way ahead of taking a
metal bar out of a pot of boiling water with your bare hand. (03)
That is not at all what Matthew Lange asked about, and not, as far as I
can tell, what anyone else has addressed.
> But arguments based simply on assertions and rules
> without proper grounding are at the other extreme,
> starting with the ancients who believed the gods
> were rigging their lives, through the modern
> physicists who posit esoterica based on the poles
> and zeros of equations that have never been
> observed actually behaving at the precise pole and
> zero values.
>
> Courts of law are organized to accept evidence,
> with judge, jury and observers choosing to accept
> or reject the asserted "facts" as truths or
> falsehoods. Findings are still considered
> "interpretations" and "judgments" based on judge,
> jury and observer opinions of the evidence. But
> few true "facts" can even be represented in a
> proper court of law.
>
> I suggest we drop the word "fact" and instead use
> the word "evidence" in this thread. From the
> various viewpoints so far expressed, we are
> getting only the assertions without the evidence.
> That is, we are getting opinions and
> interpretations, or toe counts, not evidence, and
> therefore not pure epistemological facts.
> Therefore we should not be calling these "facts".
>
>
> It might be more productive to discuss the number
> of evidentiary units rather than the number of
> facts.
> (04)
I would be interested to see a definition of "evidentiary unit" that was
significantly different from the definition of "fact". (05)
-Ed (06)
> -Rich
>
> Sincerely,
> Rich Cooper
> EnglishLogicKernel.com
> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>
> (07)
--
Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 Cel: +1 240-672-5800 (08)
"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." (09)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (010)
|