Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(August 2, 2017 at 1:27 pm)Astreja Wrote: I think the presence of an actual injured person, and your fingerprints on the chair, would be better evidence to convict.
Who are you going to convict? Based on what?
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
August 2, 2017 at 4:27 pm (This post was last modified: August 2, 2017 at 4:30 pm by Mister Agenda.)
A criminal accusation is a story, one with serious consequences if a conviction is achieved. The accusation should be listened to, and corroborating or disconfirming evidence sought. Testimony is always a story, a claim, something to investigate to see if it is supported by evidence.
The evidence doesn't all necessarily have to be external to the story, for example, too much inconsistency can make it problematic before you even look for a weapon or a victim. Or it might violate Bayesian probability without sufficient corroborating evidence to overcome the null hypothesis, as in the example someone mentioned of you injuring the person with the chair using telekinesis. That would more likely be an indication that the witness was delusional or deceived than that real telekinesis was used to beat someone badly with a chair. Ten people willing to show up in court to testify to it would be intriguing enough to really delve deep into what actually happened...maybe firm evidence of actual TK will finally be found! But the possibility of telekinesis must be adequately supported before it is reasonable to accept the testimony.
There's quite a record in the USA of convictions based solely on testimony being overturned by physical evidence that wasn't available or couldn't be analyzed at the time, though sadly it's often years later.
In biomedical research, there's a concept of 'hierarchy of evidence'. Expert opinion and anecdotal evidence rank at the bottom.
I would say that in general application in court, below that is 'hearsay'. That is, you are not a witness yourself, but you are bringing something someone else said. It is usually not allowed in court because the actual witness is not available for cross-examination. 'Jane told me Sam said' is double hearsay. 'Jane told me someone said' is double hearsay and an anonymous source, to boot. The more removed the hearsay, the greater the legal burden of proof that must be overcome to justify allowing it. Without the corroborating information the hearsay is merely an unsupported claim.
RoadRunner79 Wrote:
Astreja Wrote:I think the presence of an actual injured person, and your fingerprints on the chair, would be better evidence to convict.
Who are you going to convict? Based on what?
This seems needlessly obtuse. You of course, based on your fingerprints on the chair corroborating the story of the witnesses.
August 2, 2017 at 4:32 pm (This post was last modified: August 2, 2017 at 4:52 pm by RoadRunner79.)
(August 2, 2017 at 4:03 pm)Astonished Wrote:
(August 2, 2017 at 2:10 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: So as I suggested, create a thread and discuss.... I'm willing to look at what you have to say, your evidence and reasoning; and to have a civil discussion about it. Although I don't think it will be anything new. And I ask that you would extend the same courtesy. Perhaps we won't agree, but you can come to a better understanding of where I am coming from.
I'm not going to entertain any more disruption of this post by your need to insult me. This is the last time I am going to say it, so don't tell me; I'm not willing to look at other views, when I am inviting you to create a thread to do just that. If your not really wanting to discuss, then I consider this just flaming and repeatedly trying to attack me and disrupt, in the guise of critical thinking.
I think that there is always possible doubt, however the question is if it reasonable.
Just, answer me this: You didn't exactly respond to any of my objections, answer in a cohesive way any of the relevant questions I asked, and are continuing to dodge all of this despite YOUR bringing up the entire topic because of your fundamental misunderstanding of the validity (or lack thereof) of your favored mechanism of demonstrating things, so, why exactly suggest I go create a thread to do anything if you can't be bothered to produce any sort of defense for it in your own thread? And of course there's not going to be anything new, your case hasn't changed or advanced in two millennia.
I told you what you need to do, if you want to discuss my fundamental misunderstanding of the validity (or the lack thereof). I've stated a number of times, that this thread wasn't to debate or defend, and that I just wanted to get a survey of peoples opinions. I'm not going to keep explaining this to you.
(August 2, 2017 at 4:27 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: A criminal accusation is a story, one with serious consequences if a conviction is achieved. The accusation should be listened to, and corroborating or disconfirming evidence sought. Testimony is always a story, a claim, something to investigate to see if it is supported by evidence.
The evidence doesn't all necessarily have to be external to the story, for example, too much inconsistency can make it problematic before you even look for a weapon or a victim. Or it might violate Bayesian probability without sufficient corroborating evidence to overcome the null hypothesis, as in the example someone mentioned of you injuring the person with the chair using telekinesis. That would more likely be an indication that the witness was delusional or deceived than that real telekinesis was used to beat someone badly with a chair. Ten people willing to show up in court to testify to it would be intriguing enough to really delve deep into what actually happened...maybe firm evidence of actual TK will finally be found! But the possibility of telekinesis must be adequately supported before it is reasonable to accept the testimony.
There's quite a record in the USA of convictions based solely on testimony being overturned by physical evidence that wasn't available or couldn't be analyzed at the time, though sadly it's often years later.
In biomedical research, there's a concept of 'hierarchy of evidence'. Expert opinion and anecdotal evidence rank at the bottom.
I would say that in general application in court, below that is 'hearsay'. That is, you are not a witness yourself, but you are bringing something someone else said. It is usually not allowed in court because the actual witness is not available for cross-examination. 'Jane told me Sam said' is double hearsay. 'Jane told me someone said' is double hearsay and an anonymous source, to boot. The more removed the hearsay, the greater the legal burden of proof that must be overcome to justify allowing it. Without the corroborating information the hearsay is merely an unsupported claim.
RoadRunner79 Wrote:Who are you going to convict? Based on what?
This seems needlessly obtuse. You of course, based on your fingerprints on the chair corroborating the story of the witnesses.
As I said in the scenario, there is no other definitive physical evidence found to corroborate. If you have difficulty understanding this, then imagine that part of the testimony is that we where all playing a vigorous game of musical chairs, that the chairs are of a material that does not readily collect finger prints, or that multiple people handled multiple chairs for whatever reason.
(August 2, 2017 at 4:32 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
(August 2, 2017 at 4:03 pm)Astonished Wrote:
Just, answer me this: You didn't exactly respond to any of my objections, answer in a cohesive way any of the relevant questions I asked, and are continuing to dodge all of this despite YOUR bringing up the entire topic because of your fundamental misunderstanding of the validity (or lack thereof) of your favored mechanism of demonstrating things, so, why exactly suggest I go create a thread to do anything if you can't be bothered to produce any sort of defense for it in your own thread? And of course there's not going to be anything new, your case hasn't changed or advanced in two millennia.
I told you what you need to do, if you want to discuss my fundamental misunderstanding of the validity (or the lack thereof). Who Knows perhaps you might learn something and need to reconsider some of your assumptions about me, I've stated a number of times, that this thread wasn't to debate or defend, and that I just wanted to get a survey of peoples opinions. I'm not going to keep explaining this to you.
(August 2, 2017 at 4:27 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: A criminal accusation is a story, one with serious consequences if a conviction is achieved. The accusation should be listened to, and corroborating or disconfirming evidence sought. Testimony is always a story, a claim, something to investigate to see if it is supported by evidence.
The evidence doesn't all necessarily have to be external to the story, for example, too much inconsistency can make it problematic before you even look for a weapon or a victim. Or it might violate Bayesian probability without sufficient corroborating evidence to overcome the null hypothesis, as in the example someone mentioned of you injuring the person with the chair using telekinesis. That would more likely be an indication that the witness was delusional or deceived than that real telekinesis was used to beat someone badly with a chair. Ten people willing to show up in court to testify to it would be intriguing enough to really delve deep into what actually happened...maybe firm evidence of actual TK will finally be found! But the possibility of telekinesis must be adequately supported before it is reasonable to accept the testimony.
There's quite a record in the USA of convictions based solely on testimony being overturned by physical evidence that wasn't available or couldn't be analyzed at the time, though sadly it's often years later.
In biomedical research, there's a concept of 'hierarchy of evidence'. Expert opinion and anecdotal evidence rank at the bottom.
I would say that in general application in court, below that is 'hearsay'. That is, you are not a witness yourself, but you are bringing something someone else said. It is usually not allowed in court because the actual witness is not available for cross-examination. 'Jane told me Sam said' is double hearsay. 'Jane told me someone said' is double hearsay and an anonymous source, to boot. The more removed the hearsay, the greater the legal burden of proof that must be overcome to justify allowing it. Without the corroborating information the hearsay is merely an unsupported claim.
This seems needlessly obtuse. You of course, based on your fingerprints on the chair corroborating the story of the witnesses.
As I said in the scenario, there is no other definitive physical evidence found to corroborate. If you have difficulty understanding this, then imagine that part of the testimony is that we where all playing a vigorous game of musical chairs, that the chairs are of a material that does not readily collect finger prints, or that multiple people handled multiple chairs for whatever reason.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
August 2, 2017 at 4:58 pm (This post was last modified: August 3, 2017 at 9:16 am by Mister Agenda.)
RoadRunner79 Wrote:
Mister Agenda Wrote:This seems needlessly obtuse. You of course, based on your fingerprints on the chair corroborating the story of the witnesses.
As I said in the scenario, there is no other definitive physical evidence found to corroborate. If you have difficulty understanding this, then imagine that part of the testimony is that we where all playing a vigorous game of musical chairs, that the chairs are of a material that does not readily collect finger prints, or that multiple people handled multiple chairs for whatever reason.
Astreja introduced the idea of there being fingerprints, as an example of what would constitute better evidence to justify a conviciton. Your response to her was imbecilic. If you have difficulty understanding this, then imagine that someone introduced a new factor and you either acted like you couldn't comprehend the implications or actually couldn't comprehend them.
RoadRunner79 Wrote:As I said in the scenario, there is no other definitive physical evidence found to corroborate. If you have difficulty understanding this, then imagine that part of the testimony is that we where all playing a vigorous game of musical chairs, that the chairs are of a material that does not readily collect finger prints, or that multiple people handled multiple chairs for whatever reason.
Astreja introduced the idea of their being fingerprints, as an example of what would constitute better evidence to justify a conviciton. Your response to her was imbecilic. If you have difficulty understanding this, then imagine that someone introduced a new factor and you either acted like you couldn't comprehend the implications or actually couldn't comprehend them.
That's his underlying problem, complete and utter lack of introspection. Self-criticism is as foreign a concept to him as Martian hieroglyphics.
Religions were invented to impress and dupe illiterate, superstitious stone-age peasants. So in this modern, enlightened age of information, what's your excuse? Or are you saying with all your advantages, you were still tricked as easily as those early humans?
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
RoadRunner79 Wrote:As I said in the scenario, there is no other definitive physical evidence found to corroborate. If you have difficulty understanding this, then imagine that part of the testimony is that we where all playing a vigorous game of musical chairs, that the chairs are of a material that does not readily collect finger prints, or that multiple people handled multiple chairs for whatever reason.
Astreja introduced the idea of their being fingerprints, as an example of what would constitute better evidence to justify a conviciton. Your response to her was imbecilic. If you have difficulty understanding this, then imagine that someone introduced a new factor and you either acted like you couldn't comprehend the implications or actually couldn't comprehend them.
Thanks, I did miss that part if Astreja was trying to change things though.
However if the fingerprints don't conclusively point to me as the attacker, then of what evidence are they?
I do find the difficulty in answering without modifying things to be informative though.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
(August 2, 2017 at 1:27 pm)Astreja Wrote: I think the presence of an actual injured person, and your fingerprints on the chair, would be better evidence to convict. This is where the Jesus myth differs from your scenario -- No evidence for the injured person, no fingerprints, no chair.
B-but... the tomb was empty!
Look - there it isn't!
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Find it hard to believe they expected anyone to buy that someone causing such a stir would merit burial in an identified tomb (look at Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, buried in a pauper's grave in fuck-knows-where, and he's the name we give to the composer of so much wonderful music). One would expect the head to be on a pike somewhere. Now, for the body to still have a head and be seen walking around three days later, past his own severed, pike-mounted head, THAT would be fucking something. Too bad that would still just be anecdotal. And still just as unbelievable anyway.
Religions were invented to impress and dupe illiterate, superstitious stone-age peasants. So in this modern, enlightened age of information, what's your excuse? Or are you saying with all your advantages, you were still tricked as easily as those early humans?
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
(August 2, 2017 at 5:45 pm)Astonished Wrote: Find it hard to believe they expected anyone to buy that someone causing such a stir would merit burial in an identified tomb (look at Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, buried in a pauper's grave in fuck-knows-where, and he's the name we give to the composer of so much wonderful music). One would expect the head to be on a pike somewhere. Now, for the body to still have a head and be seen walking around three days later, past his own severed, pike-mounted head, THAT would be fucking something. Too bad that would still just be anecdotal. And still just as unbelievable anyway.
And considering the tomb is contradicted multiple times a useless antidote
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.
(August 2, 2017 at 1:27 pm)Astreja Wrote: I think the presence of an actual injured person, and your fingerprints on the chair, would be better evidence to convict. This is where the Jesus myth differs from your scenario -- No evidence for the injured person, no fingerprints, no chair.
B-but... the tomb was empty!
Look - there it isn't!
Oh look a squirrel!
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
