Ed, please see below for my comments,
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
Ed Barkmeyer wrote
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.
>
EB:>
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.
RC:> Actually, the courts
distinguish
between what they call “fact witnesses” and those who are qualified
by the court processes to be considered “expert witnesses”, aka
“opinion
witnesses” who are considered qualified to add opinions to the fact
base.
Furthermore, only criminal
charges
imply wrongdoing
by any party. Civil cases, which (IANAL) I estimate as more common by
far, end without such findings of “wrongdoing” but allocate
compensation, typically financial, but sometimes extrafinancial.
"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.
Again, evidence is what
each party considers, in its own theories of the case, to be “what
leads
one to believe something”, but since the other side(s) and even such
neutrals as court appointed “special masters” provide additional
evidence, and exposit about the “meaning” or correct “interpretation”
of the evidence in total submitted. So “facts” in litigation
relate to whatever can be disinterred during the legal discovery
process, while
opinions (i.e. what each testifier is “lead to believe something” in
your terms) is far from equivalent to the next testifier’s.
The courts also have
evolved an elaborate “discovery process” which involves both sides
looking at the other side’s cards, dealing some of their own, and
making
motions for the judge to enforce the discovery rules relevant to the
case. So there is quite a deep process for establishing what is fact,
what is opinion, and what interpretation is prescribed by the law. The
law only occasionally delivers what you call “justice”, but nearly
always delivers fair due process for all parties involved.
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.
There is no requirement in law
courts that
one take a metal bar out of a pot of boiling water. That is more in
concert with the ancients’ beliefs that the gods are interfering in
their
lives than in concert with current American laws.
That
is not at all what
Matthew Lange asked about, and not, as far as I
can
tell, what anyone else
has addressed.
Yet, IMHO, it establishes
at least
one system (the courts) for identifying facts, opinions, and
legislative
compliance. Our discussion so far has simply been a Babel of
opinions without firm
foundations. The closest thing that science has to a process for
discovering truth is publication in a journal of “peers”, which has
been found wanting far more often than litigation has been found
wanting.
Remember OJ’s trial, and
“if
it doesn’t fit you must acquit”? Remember Casey Anthony’s
trial and the lack of factual evidence that she murdered the child?
Opinions by the police, investigators, medical examiners and others in
the case
were not considered “factual” enough to convince the jurors.
But in this thread, we have given only opinions on what a fact is,
rather than
establish processes for construing facts, defining them, and placing
them in
consistent theoretical structures.
> 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.
>
I would be interested to see a definition of
"evidentiary unit" that was
significantly different from the definition
of
"fact".
The usual evidentiary unit
is a
statement (one or a few sentences) of the facts and opinions manifest
in the
case. So we are back to NLP descriptions for the most part. In
patent cases, the claim sentences are the most basic of facts, while
the mapping
of claim elements to assertions of facts or opinion about the validity
and infringement
evidence.
Finally, most civil cases
and perhaps
even most criminal cases (again IANAL) end in settlement agreements
among the
parties. This happens when all parties feel that the facts resulting
from
guided discovery processes represent a likely outcome, or risk of
outcomes,
that is too high to accept compared to the settlement agreement. This
means all sides agree to SOME extent what the facts and opinions are
likely to
do to persuade a jury and/or judge.
-Rich
-Ed
> -Rich
>
> Sincerely,
> Rich Cooper
> EnglishLogicKernel.com
> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
>