Re: How Do We Know?

X, formerly known as "!Jones" wrote:

If this is a medical emergency, stop reading, log off, and dial 911!
 

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.

 You misunderstand.  The "scientific method" is a paradigm for testing
a hypothesis.  This is not related to "eyewitness [or] documentary
evidence".  Essentially, you state your hypothesis:
 Eg:
--> The defendent is guilty.
--> The election was rigged.
--> The coin is not a "fair coin" (double heads, I guess).
 Then, state a "null hypothesis" that logically complements the
original:
 Eg:
--> The defendent is innocent.
--> The election was fair and accurate.
--> The coin *is* a "fair coin".
 Under what conditions would you reject the null hypothesis?  Suppose I
flipped it ten times and it landed heads each time... would you
reject?  At some point, you would say: "OK, OK... enough!"
 Now, you didn't *prove* that it wasn't a fair coin; you rejected the
null hypothesis that it was.  Should you have tossed it 1,000 times
and come up with 500 heads and 500 tails, you do *not* accept the null
hypothesis; you fail to reject it.
 Our legal system very definitely runs on the scientific method.  The
defense does not prove anyone is innocent... that's the null
hypothesis.  The state has to cause the finder of fact (jury, I
suppose) to reject that hypothesis.
 This is why I can accurately state that "self defense" has never been
proven because, in a finding of "not guilty", nothing is proven.
 

Using that method of proof, prove that you exist, and that you should be
allowed to continue existing, despite being a gun control advocate.