Re: How Do We Know?

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Anonymous wrote:

X, formerly known as "!Jones" wrote:

On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 17:57:20 -0400, in talk.politics.guns Anonymous
<anon@anon.net> wrote:
 

X, formerly known as "!Jones" wrote:

Definition:
A *finder of fact* shall be defined as an impartial panel of one or
more persons designated by the legislative process and sworn under
oath of office to appraise and publish as a public record the facts
underlying a particular event or legal matter.  A finder of fact
employs the scientific method

 ...which is incapable of being the sole arbiter of truth. Even when
used properly, it can't even produce consistent scientific evidence.

 Over simplifying a bit: The scientific method of hypothesis testing
means assuming the hypothesis is false, then working to reject that
assumption.  It is the basis for scientific thought and our legal
system.

>
The legal system is not based on the scientific method. In court,
scientific evidence is considered less reliable than eyewitness
and documentary evidence.
>

This seems to be true. I asked a civil law lawyer of the continental law tradition in europe, and the answer was at first "maybe, depends on the case", and after a bit of nagging, the additional thought that eyewitnesses can lie, and documents can be forged, but scientific evidence is... "scientific".
But overall, my interpretation of the delphic answer from a lawyer of that tradition is that Anonymous does seem to have a point, but that there is a reluctance to answer with a "blanket rule" answer that X is better than Y, and that all evidence is taken together when judging a case. In civil law, documents is the main category and type of evidence.