The moon doesn't cause ocean tides, claims UKIP MP Carswell
Discussion
There are, of course, degrees of 'nonsense'. Einstein proved (or did he?) that Newton was technically wrong with his laws of motion/mechanics and that they are merely an approximation. A damn fine approximation in that as long as one doesn't venture near the speed of light then Newtonian mechanics can be used accurately for all things, and is. Newton wasn't quite right but was he speaking nonsense or not? I think most right minded people believe his approach to be fact even if it is ever so slightly wrong!
When things have been proven by physical demonstration I think they can be taken as fact e.g. normal human beings have a skeleton. When things are not physically proven then they remain a theory and, although they may actually be fact, they cannot be taken as such.
When things have been proven by physical demonstration I think they can be taken as fact e.g. normal human beings have a skeleton. When things are not physically proven then they remain a theory and, although they may actually be fact, they cannot be taken as such.
p1stonhead said:
Do BMW make cars? Does Airbus make planes?
Those are indusputable facts. So are many other things.
http://www.acronymfinder.com/BMW.htmlThose are indusputable facts. So are many other things.
My first search found 47 definitions for BMW. I've seen no evidence that 46 of them make cars.
turbobloke said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Don't be open to the views of people who spout nonsense.
Your meaning is obvious and initially it's easy to agree with it outright, but it all depends on the meaning of nonsense.davepoth said:
There's no such thing as a fact.
That some theories or ideas have taken time to become accepted is neither here nor there. davepoth said:
That's why the court frames it as "beyond reasonable doubt"; hundreds of years of jurisprudence have come to the conclusion that there is always some doubt, even if it is unreasonable, and that a little bit of unreasonable doubt is acceptable even if we're sending someone to prison.
Tell us about the jurisprudence of the civil courts, where the standard of proof is more likely than not. Greg66 said:
turbobloke said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Don't be open to the views of people who spout nonsense.
Your meaning is obvious and initially it's easy to agree with it outright, but it all depends on the meaning of nonsense.Greg66 said:
davepoth said:
Greg66 said:
Tell us about the jurisprudence of the civil courts, where the standard of proof is more likely than not.
I can if you like, but that rather proves my point rather than yours, doesn't it?The bar for a decision in a civil court is set rather lower than that in a criminal court; rather than "beyond all reasonable doubt" it is "on the balance of probabilities". The judge will allow significant and reasonable doubt that an account of events is true and still find in favour of that account if on the balance of probabilities it is more likely to be true than any other account of events that has been presented.
davepoth said:
Sounds like you're dealing with absolutes again...
The bar for a decision in a civil court is set rather lower than that in a criminal court; rather than "beyond all reasonable doubt" it is "on the balance of probabilities". The judge will allow significant and reasonable doubt that an account of events is true and still find in favour of that account if on the balance of probabilities it is more likely to be true than any other account of events that has been presented.
Yes, well recited. Now explain how the jurisprudence of the civil courts has led to this approach because it's impossible to prove facts. The bar for a decision in a civil court is set rather lower than that in a criminal court; rather than "beyond all reasonable doubt" it is "on the balance of probabilities". The judge will allow significant and reasonable doubt that an account of events is true and still find in favour of that account if on the balance of probabilities it is more likely to be true than any other account of events that has been presented.
In your explanation it would help to focus on why the lower threshold of proof in the civil courts vs the criminal courts logically means that someone has concluded it is harder to prove a fact in a civil court than it is to prove a fact in a criminal court.
Or you could just run up the white flag now and concede that the standard of proof adopted by courts has nothing to do with your absolutist approach to proof of facts. That would save a lot of time and typing.
Greg66 said:
Yes, well recited. Now explain how the jurisprudence of the civil courts has led to this approach because it's impossible to prove facts.
In your explanation it would help to focus on why the lower threshold of proof in the civil courts vs the criminal courts logically means that someone has concluded it is harder to prove a fact in a civil court than it is to prove a fact in a criminal court.
Or you could just run up the white flag now and concede that the standard of proof adopted by courts has nothing to do with your absolutist approach to proof of facts. That would save a lot of time and typing.
The reason the bar in civil court is set lower is because the consequences are less severe - the worst civil court can do is impose financial penalties. A criminal court can lock you up for life. In your explanation it would help to focus on why the lower threshold of proof in the civil courts vs the criminal courts logically means that someone has concluded it is harder to prove a fact in a civil court than it is to prove a fact in a criminal court.
Or you could just run up the white flag now and concede that the standard of proof adopted by courts has nothing to do with your absolutist approach to proof of facts. That would save a lot of time and typing.
Both courts have arrived at a level of doubt that they find to be acceptable, so under your own definition their determinations cannot be "facts" since every judgement implies that they have not bothered to test the evidence in front of them beyond reasonable doubt, or even past the balance of probabilities, meaning that in a civil case there may well be significant and reasonable doubt that the events ruled upon have happened.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Derek Smith said:
I had a history teacher who was so inspirational that I have read a history book more than once a month for the last 50 years. (And bought too many according to my wife.)
He started his first lesson by introducing himself, going over the syllabus and then said:
'Everything I am going to tell you is wrong.'
My history teacher started off by telling us that history was largely a set of lies agreed upon by the winners!He started his first lesson by introducing himself, going over the syllabus and then said:
'Everything I am going to tell you is wrong.'
What struck me as remarkable, shocking when I first worked it out, was that there are all sorts of generators for new theories. Fashion plays a big role in the sense that one aspect becomes the must have hook for a book. Then there's the need for a professor to be controversial in order to get a book published and secure his place at the uni. Or there is there the desire to rehabilitate, for instance Vikings being artistic seems to more than counter-balance their rapine and destruction. Being hacked to death via a pretty axe is still being hacked to death.
I remember reading a book on the siege of Drogheda. It criticised the destruction of the town and the killing of the inhabitants, despite there being no evidence for the riot and carnage described. Yet the chap who wrote it was a renowned historian. The phrase he used was 'unprecedented' and, it was implied, a result of the nasty Parliamentarians being nasty Parliamentarians. Yet I'd just read a book about the siege of Hopton castle (now, oddly enough, not a castle it would appear) where the nasty Royalists did something similar, ie killing all the occupants bar one or two. That too was written by a renowned historian. At the end of all my reading I came to the tentative conclusion that the killing and destruction of Drogheda most likely did happen because it was more or less the norm when occupants didn't surrender immediately. It was in the rule book.
There was a series of book reviews in The Sunday Times in January 2014 about the causes of WWI. I think there were five. Four were written by academics and the remaining one by an academic who had jumped ship to be a TV presenter of all sorts of programmes. They all disagreed on fundamentals. That said, I bought one, Sleepwalkers, and despite knowing that it is controversial I believe it.
But it doesn't excuse Carswell.
davepoth said:
The reason the bar in civil court is set lower is because the consequences are less severe - the worst civil court can do is impose financial penalties. A criminal court can lock you up for life.
Both courts have arrived at a level of doubt that they find to be acceptable, so under your own definition their determinations cannot be "facts" since every judgement implies that they have not bothered to test the evidence in front of them beyond reasonable doubt, or even past the balance of probabilities, meaning that in a civil case there may well be significant and reasonable doubt that the events ruled upon have happened.
Again, you're just not getting the point. Both courts have arrived at a level of doubt that they find to be acceptable, so under your own definition their determinations cannot be "facts" since every judgement implies that they have not bothered to test the evidence in front of them beyond reasonable doubt, or even past the balance of probabilities, meaning that in a civil case there may well be significant and reasonable doubt that the events ruled upon have happened.
The Courts have standards of proof that they regard as necessary for them to do their job. That does not support the position - as you would have it - that facts are impossible to prove, and that the Courts acknowledge this.
You're just making stuff up now and spouting a stream of consciousness. Which is obviously an advantage in an internet argument.
If you'd like to refer any of your readers to the hundreds of years of jurisprudence on this, which presumably you studied at length before referring to, please do so.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff