(August 4, 2017 at 9:43 am)Astonished Wrote:

---

(August 4, 2017 at 8:04 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Now as to being objective... I don't know about that.   I think this is why we have multiple juror's in a trial, and they must be in agreement.  If it's a matter of objectivity, then we wouldn't have jurors at all, but just feed the data into an equation or spreadsheet, and tabulate the results.  That would scare the hell out of me. 

However we do live in a society where testimony alone is enough to convict (as I mentioned previously  a case by J. Warner Wallace).  And I don't think that is a problem.  As long as we test our witnesses. It's important still to have multiple independent lines of evidence, what they have to say and contribute to the information about the case and are aware of the limits and shortcomings of the evidence.  A number of testimonies, can give us much more information from which to base a reasoned conclusion, than an equal number of other forms of evidence.

---

Looking back, it appears, that it was mostly just the argument that others be able to change the scenario, for which some where trying to bring in physical evidence to avoid the question of testimony.  I apologize.    And as I had told you before, I do agree, that there are going to be details about the testimony and people themselves, that I wasn't going to get into in a post.  Assumption that the testimony was good where to be made, for the sake of brevity. 

In that regard, I don't think that I was making constant large changes to the scenario, as some seem to imply either.   Mostly the clarification for the above.  Would you agree?

I don't see how you can say that with a straight face if you say Twelve Angry Men is one of your favorite movies. It's also a hallmark of theism to mistrust machinery so it's no surprise you'd be less fearful of human jurors than a program that could calculate odds on an algorithm, if, since you like hypotheticals so much, that would be far more objective than humans can be and should be sophisticated enough to be free of errors.

And no, sorry, you're wrong (about the same thing you keep failing to understand). Testimony cannot do what you're claiming. It can support other evidence and nothing more substantial. It is too unreliable to take at face value on its own. Case in point, your repeated and continued lack of ability or willingness to grasp this objective fact.

---

With little difficulty (regarding 12 Angry Men)
I gave my opinion... if you want the offer still stands to discuss and reason through it. Start a thread. I would, but as you may have noticed, there is a pattern of questioning my motives and intentions that seems to distract from the subject. Perhaps it would be different if someone else starts the thread.

---

You may also note, that I don't have a mistrust of machines or adversion to technology. I build, program, and troubleshoot machine controls. They can do very well, but they can break down. They are very consistent, even in doing the wrong thing, depending on the input and programming. They are also very good at doing the same thing over and over again. If you can provide an equation or sequence to them. They can for what you program into them. Evaluating evidence has a number of variables, that calls for weighing their strengths and weakness and it's not always the same, and may vary in relation to other things. It not easy to make a formula or sequence for. So a machine likely would be more consistent although may sacrifice accuracy.

Whereas the human machine sacrifices both accuracy -and- consistency, and yet, some of us are comfortable with lynching.  You know, the two might be related.

Exactly. You don't get it, Beep-Beep, you're just defeating yourself more and more with every post, why don't you just admit defeat and give this charade up?

Two questions:

1) Was it originally me that Rev'd Road Runner did in with the candle stick in the dining room? Once I caught the thrust of his OP I stopped reading it.

2) Why is this thread still in Life Sciences? It is clearly christian apologetics and has nothing to do with any science.

(August 4, 2017 at 8:04 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I understand where you are coming from.   And with DNA, the false convictions, was mostly the result of human error and contamination.   I do think that there are other issues, that we are just starting to come up concerning DNA, but they are more false negatives, which is what is preferred in a criminal case.  Although my understanding of the process of DNA testing, is that it is not quite as objective as is sometimes thought.  See Here  

Your argument here is a bit disingenuous since you're linking to a page regarding the difficulties of determining guilt based on DNA mixtures, yet you're applying the arguments from the link to all DNA testing. Yes, there will always be trouble determining guilt when the DNA of three or four (or more, a DNA mixture) people are taken in a swab, but a clean sample compared to a clean specimen is going to be far more accurate than you're trying to depict.

(August 4, 2017 at 5:13 pm)Tazzycorn Wrote: Two questions:

1) Was it originally me that Rev'd Road Runner did in with the candle stick in the dining room? Once I caught the thrust of his OP I stopped reading it.

2) Why is this thread still in Life Sciences? It is clearly christian apologetics and has nothing to do with any science.

1) Not sure what you mean by that but it was Tizerhuk that was being strawmanned as Beep-Beep's punching bag in the OP.

2) You honestly expect Beep-Beep to think critically about anything? He has no idea what the fuck he's talking about and has such a complete misunderstanding of fundamental definitions of terms and applications of them, why would anyone expect him to figure out the right forum to put any kind of discussion?

(August 4, 2017 at 8:54 pm)Astonished Wrote: You honestly expect Beep-Beep to think critically about anything? He has no idea what the fuck he's talking about and has such a complete misunderstanding of fundamental definitions of terms and applications of them, why would anyone expect him to figure out the right forum to put any kind of discussion?

I still have an open invitation to anyone, who would like to discuss/debate The topic in more detail.
Now by this I mean actual discussion, not just insults, declaring your opinion as fact, and more insults. You will need to demonstrate this critical thinking you keep talking about.

All you need to do is show enough interest to start a thread.

Now do you want to keep sniping and straw manning me Astonished

(August 4, 2017 at 8:14 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:

(August 4, 2017 at 8:04 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I understand where you are coming from.   And with DNA, the false convictions, was mostly the result of human error and contamination.   I do think that there are other issues, that we are just starting to come up concerning DNA, but they are more false negatives, which is what is preferred in a criminal case.  Although my understanding of the process of DNA testing, is that it is not quite as objective as is sometimes thought.  See Here  

Your argument here is a bit disingenuous since you're linking to a page regarding the difficulties of determining guilt based on DNA mixtures, yet you're applying the arguments from the link to all DNA testing. Yes, there will always be trouble determining guilt when the DNA of three or four (or more, a DNA mixture) people are taken in a swab, but a clean sample compared to a clean specimen is going to be far more accurate than you're trying to depict.

Indeed you can't compare mixed dna to a regular clean sample . Just another attempt by Road to try and undermine real standards and methods . And try and elevate hersay and the babbling of religious cultist . And pretend there on the same level . But that's all apologists do.

Just my humble opinion, and not that I'm perfect or anything, but the verbal abuse has gotten a little heavy around these parts lately. I don't think it casts us in the best light is all I'm saying.

(August 4, 2017 at 9:20 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(August 4, 2017 at 8:54 pm)Astonished Wrote: You honestly expect Beep-Beep to think critically about anything? He has no idea what the fuck he's talking about and has such a complete misunderstanding of fundamental definitions of terms and applications of them, why would anyone expect him to figure out the right forum to put any kind of discussion?

I still have an open invitation to anyone, who would like to discuss/debate The topic in more detail.  
Now by this I mean actual discussion, not just insults, declaring your opinion as fact, and more insults.  You will need to demonstrate this critical thinking you keep talking about.

All you need to do is show enough interest to start a thread.

Now do you want to keep sniping and straw manning me Astonished

There's no need to straw man you, there are 16 pages of you proving my point in here. So what exact value would there be in creating a thread to discuss this when you've proven you're incapable of making any productive contribution to it?