RE: God is the great spirit friend
March 22, 2013 at 1:36 pm
(This post was last modified: March 22, 2013 at 1:39 pm by jstrodel.)
That is true that they use forensic labs, but that is not the same as replicable scientific evidence. There is no way to replicate a guilty verdict in a court, which is based on whatever the evidence at hand points to.
The existence of some forensic laboratory tools which methods can be tested and proved does not mean that those methods are the main way that guilt is assessed.
This is a lie. Of course I am aware of forensic evidence, but you missed my point and did not realize the subtle difference between a process that is influenced to some degree by a laboratory science (like forensics) and the fact that a verdict is not reached at all through these methods. There is not forensic evidence available in most cases, and even when it is, laboratory methods do not deliver the final verdict, a jury or a judge does.
The epistemology of a court room may rely on replicable methods, but it itself is not a replicable test, by its nature. To ask for it to be would be to deny the non-laboratory nature of life.
Very profound. This settles the issue of whether God exists or not and will be remembered next to Augustine, Newton, Descartes, Bacon, Aquinas, Kierkegaard and other great intellectual giants as the definitive statement of the nature of the relationship between faith and reason.
Do you think I could get your autograph?
The existence of some forensic laboratory tools which methods can be tested and proved does not mean that those methods are the main way that guilt is assessed.
Quote:Virtually every crime is assessed using forensic evidence
This is a lie. Of course I am aware of forensic evidence, but you missed my point and did not realize the subtle difference between a process that is influenced to some degree by a laboratory science (like forensics) and the fact that a verdict is not reached at all through these methods. There is not forensic evidence available in most cases, and even when it is, laboratory methods do not deliver the final verdict, a jury or a judge does.
The epistemology of a court room may rely on replicable methods, but it itself is not a replicable test, by its nature. To ask for it to be would be to deny the non-laboratory nature of life.
(March 22, 2013 at 1:33 pm)Tonus Wrote:(March 22, 2013 at 1:27 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Do you have critical thinking regarding religious ideas as well as science or religious only?
To both. Science is built on critical thinking, religion is based on faith and the acceptance of something beyond detection and beyond science. Science doesn't work without critical thinking. Religion can only work without it.
Very profound. This settles the issue of whether God exists or not and will be remembered next to Augustine, Newton, Descartes, Bacon, Aquinas, Kierkegaard and other great intellectual giants as the definitive statement of the nature of the relationship between faith and reason.
Do you think I could get your autograph?
