Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nobel Prize vs Proof that the Death Penalty MUST kill innocents
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 151 of 236 (199376)
04-14-2005 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Silent H
04-14-2005 9:01 AM


quote:
There is a point where enough evidence has been collected that the only logically possible evidence that could occur to challenge an idea, involves practical absurdities.
Yes, but even Gould defines the acceptance of facts as "provisional", and the conclusions reached from those facts as "tentative".
He never goes as far as to consider facts "absolute".
To me, "provisional" and "tentative mean "not 100% sure".
If the facts we base our conclusions on in science are only accepted "provisionally", and the conclusions we reach are held "tentatively", then I am not willing to embrace a system which allows the DP (which all cases must go through).
Do you consider evidence to ever be more than provisonally accepted, contrary to Gould?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Silent H, posted 04-14-2005 9:01 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by crashfrog, posted 04-14-2005 4:23 PM nator has not replied
 Message 159 by Silent H, posted 04-14-2005 5:30 PM nator has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 152 of 236 (199379)
04-14-2005 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by crashfrog
04-14-2005 3:21 PM


But they're not impossible. That's the problem you seem to have - no amount of "absurd" equals "impossible".
For acceptance as knowledge or equal theories absurdities can be labelled as impossible. That's the point.
You told me to do the reading, and so I did, and I discovered that you were totally wrong about the nature of scientific tentativity. It isn't a practical result of the fact that scientists are idiots or bad at their jobs or simply working in areas for which there's simply not enough data.
What the hell are you talking about? Your description does not match anything I have been trying to explain.
Go to the logic page at Wikipedia. From there go to the deductive logic, inductive logic, scientific scepticism, and philosophical scepticism.
With the exception of some term choices, you will find most of what I have explained here. More importantly you should start getting a pretty good grasp of where epistemology fits into science, and that the question of when we know something is not locked into scientific methods.
What's more I'm sure you'll start reading sci scept and think you are one of them. That is the idea of treating every day concepts of "I know" according to scientific principles. However by the end you should start figuring out where you are going wrong. Although tentativity means all theories are "kept open", that does not rule out saying "I know". That is one hell of an important distinction.
There is a practical point within real life where the only logical possibilities left, besides one, are those which would be excluded by current scientific methods. In those cases, despite tentativity, it is INCORRECT to treat any of the other logical possibilities as real or practical plausibilities and reject acceptin the single remaining logical possibility not excluded.
I suppose I could quote Holmes at this point, but I won't.
Once you say that ALL logical possibilities must be entertained as equal possibilities, or serious practical possibilities, one has left scientific scepticism, and the scientific method, and embraced a form of philosophical scepticism.
Indeed, if you read through those pages you will also find a discussion of criticisms of sci scepticism, and it will look quite like what you are demanding once a "life is on the line". And as I said, which you will see, that is directly relatable to the creo epistemological position.
Scientific tenativity stems from the fact that no amount of evidence overcomes the fact that relying on evidence itself is a fallacy, specifically the Inductive Fallacy.
Not sure what page you're on but there is more. The rules of knowledge are not static and one can find more than just the inductive fallacy. Oh yeah, if you read about that how did you not run into Hume, which backs up what I was saying here?
You are trying to push for a level of skepticism which moves beyond normal scientific skepticism and into philosophical skepticism. That is in addition to rejecting the non sci-skeptics who have practical objections to these knowledge "problems".
We have a justice system predicated on a principle of the greatest possible benefit of the doubt for the accused, filled with people operating from the greatest possible benefit of the doubt, with the vast majority of the financial incentive working for the accused. (Generally.) If that's not the highest bar for guilt that we can possibly set, what is?
I am truly in bizarro world. On top of one of the most blatantly flagwaving bits of sentimentality I have ever seen coming from you, it includes blatantly false premises.
We do not have a system predicated on benefit of the doubt. There are laws and they are backed by courts where you are expected to prove your innocence. You have a duty to provide proof of innocence or you are found guilty. Think it doesn't happen here, think again. Here's one for you: 18 2257.
We do not have a system which guarantees unbiased juries, but instead has a selection process which can wind up hurting either side. It is not an automatic win for anyone.
And your idea of people getting equal justice, have you heard of a public defender? They are not going to be going toe to toe with the DA the same as a high priced attorney. Plea deals are generally the norm, even if not for the best.
For a guy trying to say I should be worrying about the possibility of corruption, where the hell is it? I have stars and stripes falling all over my head.
Indeed the very idea that our system cannot be improved is just wild. Generally any system can be improved, and if you've been through our courts you should know they could use some work. Hell the people who work in them say they need work.
In any case, the current rules for establishing guilt in general, beyond a reasonable doubt, are not strong enough to preclude innocents being found guilty. That is whether it is for the death penalty or not. That tends to say to me that the system needs some fixing.
At the very least we need to heavily tighten the evidence necessary to allow for a death penalty. Even if you don't think it can get all innocent people from being executed, you should be able to recognize that it would be in improvement from what we have now, and if applied to non capital cases (to some degree) could improve problems with noncapital cases.
If there was a higher bar that could be reached, we'd be reaching it.
I mean you just can't be serious can you? You can't see this is an out and out fallacy?
You ask a direct question that's relevant to the topic at hand, and I'll answer it. You insist on bringing in these irrelevancies in a vain and disingenuous effort to paint your opponents as hypocrites, and you'll get more of the same.
That's funny, I started this thread. I even started it with a question that you continually refuse to answer. How you can tell me what is or is not relevant to a topic that I started is just ridiculous.
That I add another question and explain its relevance, to hear "it's just not", is a failure on your part, not mine.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by crashfrog, posted 04-14-2005 3:21 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by crashfrog, posted 04-14-2005 4:21 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 170 by tsig, posted 04-15-2005 1:39 AM Silent H has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 153 of 236 (199381)
04-14-2005 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Silent H
04-14-2005 4:06 PM


For acceptance as knowledge or equal theories absurdities can be labelled as impossible.
Why? Just because you'd like to? Sorry, but that's not good enough for me. There's an obvious, not-so-subtle difference between "absurd" and "impossible." Absurd stuff probably won't happen. Impossible stuff won't ever happen. I would think that would be obvious.
But, you know, redefine words however you like.
Go to the logic page at Wikipedia.
Well, I started with the scientific method page, maybe that's your problem? If you had started there, you might have read, as I did, that:
quote:
Causal explanations have the general form of universal statements, stating that every instance of the phenomenon has a particular characteristic. It is not deductively valid to infer a universal statement from any series of particular observations. This is the problem of induction. Many solutions to this problem have been suggested, including falsifiability and Bayesian inference.
Scientific method - Wikipedia
Now, if you follow that to "problem of induction", you find that:
quote:
any series of observations, however large, may be taken to logically imply any particular conclusion about some future event only if 'induction' itself works. And that may be concluded only inductively. So, for instance, from any series of observations that water freezes at 0C it is valid to infer that the next sample of water will do the same only if induction works. That such a prediction comes true when tried merely adds to the series; it does not establish the reliability of induction, except inductively.
Problem of induction - Wikipedia
And futhermore that:
quote:
David Hume addressed this problem in the 18th century in a particularly influential way, and no analysis since has managed to evade Hume's critique. Hume looked at ways to justify inductive thinking. He pointed out that justifying induction on the grounds that it has worked in the past begs the question. That is, it is using inductive reasoning to justify induction. Circular arguments are valid, but do not provide a satisfactory justification for the supposition they claim to support.
Once you say that ALL logical possibilities must be entertained as equal possibilities, or serious practical possibilities, one has left scientific scepticism, and the scientific method, and embraced a form of philosophical scepticism.
None of us have made that claim. This is simply a strawman of your own invention.
The claim we've made is that, in order to justly apply the death penalty, the alternative - that the man is innocent - can't even be a logical possibility. It's that simple. Only when the proposition that the man is innocent is logically impossible - not practically impossible, not reasonably impossible, but completely logically impossible - is the death penalty usable.
Well, you can't provide that level of certainty. You certainly can't provide it by induction from evidence. So, the death penalty is off the table because we can't apply it justly. You're the only one that seems to have a problem with that. Why is that?
Generally any system can be improved
Oh, it can, can it? Might that be because no system is truly perfect? Including your secret plan to eliminate flaws in the death penalty?
Huh. How about that. Well, I've made it pretty clear that I demand that the system be perfect if the death penalty is to be used. If every system can be improved, then no system is perfect. Which is exactly what you've been arguing against.
How do you do it, Holmes? How do you argue against a position, and then take that exact same position to refute a minor subpoint of your opponent? Is it because you have no decency, or are you just that careless? I'm curious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Silent H, posted 04-14-2005 4:06 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Silent H, posted 04-14-2005 5:04 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 154 of 236 (199382)
04-14-2005 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by nator
04-14-2005 3:59 PM


Do you consider evidence to ever be more than provisonally accepted, contrary to Gould?
Perversely, the only evidence he more than provisionally accepts is that which was not uncovered according to the scientific method, but by casual, day-to-day methodologies.
Can you imagine such a thing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by nator, posted 04-14-2005 3:59 PM nator has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 155 of 236 (199384)
04-14-2005 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by crashfrog
04-14-2005 3:28 PM


We all know that the rules of the scientific methodology are considerably stricter than the rules you apply to have knowledge in every-day life;
Really. Explain foundationalism and how it applies to justified knowledge. Oh wait, lets start with something easy. What is a justified true belief and how does it differ from knowledge?
Yeah, I know you can look it up so it won't prove whether you actually knew it or not, but getting you to read something such that you can answer that question, you might start understanding you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
Epistemology is a field of study. Scientific methods are a subset of epistemology. Scientific criteria are not set and have changed over years, and there are some criteria, or branches of epistemology which can demand more rigorous methods.
What is "to know" can be quite extensive for needs and so unattainable, or general and so easy to reach. Neither guarantee better results.
therefore it's beyond idiotic to assert that the knowledge you gain from a looser, more error-prone methodology is somehow better or less tentative.
So why do you throw out the exclusionary rules regarding the viability of logical possilities, so that tentativity means all logical possibilities are practical plausibilities to be considered for cases of acceptance?
I'm not arguing for it, you are.
How stupid do you think I am?
Well I'll tell you how stupid I didn't think you were. I did not think you were so ignorant as to turn science into dogma and utter the following...
And ultimately, for the greatest fidelity to the real world possible, the scientific methodology.
That is patently false. There are assumptions and potential fallacies within its assumptions. There are even acknowledged losses of possible knowledge.
It is undoubtedly the best method we can use right now (it is still changing), in order to investigate natural phenomena using natural explanations.
I like the scientific method, but it is not God either. And yes you can tighten rules of evidence even within science.
I'm saying that in many situations, we're going to know enough, and know it confidently enough, to put a man in jail, possibly until he dies. But I'm saying that we don't know enough to kill him. We'll never know enough; it's not possible to know enough.
This is saying quite clearly that rules of knowledge (when we can say we know) need to be adjusted due to moral reasons.
So what is the adjustment? You are claiming that in a situation where there is but one logical possibility which scientific rules would not exclude, and thus it would be the justified belief or practical certainty or knowledge (whichever you want), we must remove exclusion rules in order that all logical possibilities come into play.
That is NOT the scientific method, that is advocating philosophical scepticism. Despite tentativity, which has some practical and some metaphysical implications, when one is left with one remaining logical possibility not excluded, that becomes the ONLY rational choice to hold.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by crashfrog, posted 04-14-2005 3:28 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by crashfrog, posted 04-14-2005 4:40 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 167 by Zhimbo, posted 04-14-2005 7:43 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Taqless
Member (Idle past 5913 days)
Posts: 285
From: AZ
Joined: 12-18-2003


Message 156 of 236 (199388)
04-14-2005 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by nator
04-14-2005 3:41 PM


I would suggest the following:
1. Randomly chosen judges from across the country after fitting a set of criteria based on judgements they have passed down prior to being on the "short list".
2. Since these panels would not be meeting on a regular basis, the judges could be notified and then meet at a designated location.
3. The names of the judges would not be divulged.
4. All judges must agree on the final verdict.
5. Also, let's remember that it is not everyday that a detective gets lucky enough to get the evidence list holmes presented.
I might even suggest that the relevant lab technicians from these cases be required to weigh in with their specific role as well as the detectives and witnesses, on an individual basis. Things like this.
I don't know if holmes has different ideas on how to approach the judge issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by nator, posted 04-14-2005 3:41 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by nator, posted 04-15-2005 8:38 AM Taqless has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 157 of 236 (199389)
04-14-2005 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Silent H
04-14-2005 4:27 PM


It is undoubtedly the best method we can use right now (it is still changing), in order to investigate natural phenomena using natural explanations.
Which is funny, because that's exactly what I just said.
This is saying quite clearly that rules of knowledge (when we can say we know) need to be adjusted due to moral reasons.
I'm not adjusting the rules. I'm recognizing that different rules give us different levels of confidence about their conclusions. That's not a contentious position, to my knowledge.
For the death penalty, which is irreversable, I demand a higher level of confidence than can be reached by any inductive methodology. As apparently this demand is shared by many, I don't find it unreasonable. Apparently you do?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Silent H, posted 04-14-2005 4:27 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Silent H, posted 04-14-2005 5:47 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 158 of 236 (199394)
04-14-2005 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by crashfrog
04-14-2005 4:21 PM


Well, I started with the scientific method page, maybe that's your problem? If you had started there, you might have read, as I did, that:
Yeah, I read it. It talks about what you said and already agreed with. Apparently like the questions I ask you directly, you cannot actually do something that might change your mind.
Yes there is a problem and limit to induction.
any series of observations, however large, may be taken to logically imply any particular conclusion about some future event only if 'induction' itself works. And that may be concluded only inductively. So, for instance, from any series of observations that water freezes at 0C it is valid to infer that the next sample of water will do the same only if induction works. That such a prediction comes true when tried merely adds to the series; it does not establish the reliability of induction, except inductively
Now apply that to a murder case. I mean just read the above quote, does that sound like how they prove something? In murder cases, or any other investigation, even much of science, we use both induction and deduction.
David Hume addressed this problem in the 18th century in a particularly influential way, and no analysis since has managed to evade Hume's critique. Hume looked at ways to justify inductive thinking. He pointed out that justifying induction on the grounds that it has worked in the past begs the question. That is, it is using inductive reasoning to justify induction. Circular arguments are valid, but do not provide a satisfactory justification for the supposition they claim to support
Wow, really? Does that mean you've read Hume and understand what he meant regarding other epistemological issues? Yep, his critique of induction has philosphical meanings. So did Descartes, if you ever reach the other pages. Then you will note at least for DesCartes, they say even he rejected some of his skepticism as practical for use in science.
See there's this difference between philosophical and scientific rules of knowledge. Philosophically there are some problems for using induction, and that is exactly what creos help themselves to all the time. But for practical purposes, mixed with some fixes (one example is falsifiability), practical knowledge is possible.
The claim we've made is that, in order to justly apply the death penalty, the alternative - that the man is innocent - can't even be a logical possibility.
Whooooooooaaaaa. I was certainly making an error and creating a strawman and I apologize. That said I have no clue how you can build the argument above.
Its not just a binary situation. His guilt requires actual real world facts (regardless of our knowledge), as well as his innocence.
Those facts would necessitate some level of physical realities which can be tested.
I do not see the situation as it being he is guilty or he is innocent. I see it as all of the evidence points toward the person's guilt balanced against whether there are any plausible scenarios where evidence could possibly exist (even if we may never reach it) that he is innocent.
If we are down to no plausible scenarios, despite being logical possibilities, where evidence could be had for innocence, then it is not rational to hold anything but that he is guilty.
Only when the proposition that the man is innocent is logically impossible - not practically impossible, not reasonably impossible, but completely logically impossible - is the death penalty usable.
And then you reverse yourself. In order for a person's innocence to be LOGICALLY impossible, one would by LOGICAL NECESSITY be requiring that all LOGICALLY POSSIBLE scenarios of his innocence be entertained.
I am not sure how you do not see that that is a logical necessity.
Well, you can't provide that level of certainty. You certainly can't provide it by induction from evidence.
You are absolutely right. And even using science (which you have mocked into the grave with your ist all induction garbage) it would be impossible.
I have never claimed a system that could remove all logical possibilities. That is because I do use a system (of knowledge, not guilt/innocence) which is modelled on the scientific process. Like it, I reject for practical purposes philosophical scepticism.
It is important to hold for adjusting some theories, especially when in a room of philosophers and have a buzz on, but not useful in determining practical knowledge.
You're the only one that seems to have a problem with that. Why is that?
Actually I'm not. If you look at the rest of the thread (or the other pages of wiki) you will discover this. In the end philosophical skepticism, where one must prove LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY, is not useful or desirable for real world living where knowledge is required.
I do not require all LOGICAL POSSIBILITIES from being addressed before a state kills someone. I am very comfortable with that.
Oh, it can, can it? Might that be because no system is truly perfect? Including your secret plan to eliminate flaws in the death penalty?
Secret plan? At this point there have been two different systems moved forward. And yes any system can be improved. I suppose there will be reached a practical limit until new mechanisms are created for evidence, but yeah even my system can be improved.
Heck, you should have already seen me accept what I view as a weaker system, just to allow people a psychological benefit of greater security (of not killing an innocent) though it has no practical value.
The key is not to choose a system that will kill an innocent person. The trade off will be that less cases which might actually "call for" the death penalty, can have it applied.
Is it because you have no decency, or are you just that careless? I'm curious.
Dull. Very dull.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by crashfrog, posted 04-14-2005 4:21 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by crashfrog, posted 04-14-2005 5:57 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 159 of 236 (199399)
04-14-2005 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by nator
04-14-2005 3:59 PM


Yes, but even Gould defines the acceptance of facts as "provisional", and the conclusions reached from those facts as "tentative".
1) Gould is NOT GOD, and everything he did and said was not all that could be said or is believed within science or philosophy of science... or more importantly what one considers knowledge for onesself.
2) Although facts may be provisionsl, and conclusions tentative, that does not relieve anyone of the burden of what I pointed out. When you have only one remaining logical possibility that is not excluded, and the rest would be excluded, it is invalid to say any but the remaining choice is correct.
(the only possible answer to this... i think... is what crash just came up with where we are not talking about evidence at all and just two possibilities, guilt or innocence regardless of avenues of evidence. Frankly I don't see where that fits into a scientific or most other knowledge systems, but maybe he can correct it.)
If the facts we base our conclusions on in science are only accepted "provisionally", and the conclusions we reach are held "tentatively", then I am not willing to embrace a system which allows the DP (which all cases must go through).
The idea that knowledge is just what science says, or is strictly dominated by its rules, is not logically or objectively true. That is an epistemological position.
If you don't believe me, go read the page on scientific scepticism at wikipedia.
Even within that you will find that there are debates regarding how strong tentativity (though I think they don't use that word specifically) counts against knowledge.
When you are writing a paper on something, based on fragmentary observations and data, it makes a lot of sense to phrase yoru words carefully and not consider things absolute.
Unlike most subjects of scientific study, and certainly the stuff Gould was looking at, there are more cases of when there are no real logical possibilities left, except ones excluded from consideration. In that case it is unscientific and not very practical in my view, to reject the remaining non excluded possibility and embrace the others... just to be safe.
Do you consider evidence to ever be more than provisonally accepted, contrary to Gould?
I do not believe your assessment of Gould's actual meaning is correct. But if it is, then yes I disagree with him. There's be more than me as well (if what you are suggesting is what he meant). He was not the God of science, or knowledge, he was just a really bright guy that had some great ideas and essays. I'm sure he made some mistakes somewhere even in biology.
Provisional acceptance, when it means accepting the equality of theories that are normally rejected, would be a bad idea in my mind.
Like I said I love to think about that kind of stuff. That's why I don't dis creos as hard as I've seen others do. But it isn't practical and I'm more pragmatic in real life.
Now you can certainly say you would want to embrace that level of scepticism. Okay then, I can accept that as an answer. The problem is putting on airs that it is factually superior, and more to the point it eliminates your credibility in knocking creos when they call for the same level of tentativity.
I think you saw this first hand with that first thread Faith was in and I was backing her up (for a bit). She was pretty clearly using tentativity as you are now with this, to biological theories. Suddenly tentativity had to include acceptance of logical possibilities normally excluded. And the reason was clear, moral obligation.
In the end it is not "wrong" to do this, but it has repercussions in consistency, and to my mind in practical reality.
I'd rather just be against the death penalty because killing is wrong, than because I feel I must entertain any and all possibilities the person is innocent, even those I'd never accept in my life as cases of knowledge. The latter has a creeping epistemic nihilism I do not like.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by nator, posted 04-14-2005 3:59 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by nator, posted 04-15-2005 9:07 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 160 of 236 (199403)
04-14-2005 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Silent H
04-14-2005 12:46 PM


Could someone argue, hey that'll come up to less than 1 case every hundred years so let's chuck the option to save money on preserving equipment we don't use? Yeah, sure. But that is another debate.
You've barely outlined some parts of your system, and it's already convicting "only 1 case in 100 years." (your own wild guess). By the time you actually fill out your own system explicitly, THAT NUMBER IS GOING TO INCREASE.
You avoided my point, which I stated 3 (about to be 4) times:
You can't show that "death penalty systems do not inherently involve killing innocents" by proposing a system that we are "practically certain" leads to no deaths. In your "practically certain" space of knowing, proposing such a system is IDENTICAL to proposing a logically impossible system; i.e. "we'll kill only those whose DNA identically matches that of Mickey Mantle and Ted Williams."
You made it clear from the start that this thread was NOT about logical possibility, but about what can be done practically. It's wrong to hold people to the criterion of "practical certainty" for knowledge, yet not hold to the criterion of "practical certainty" for your system. So far, all I have seen is that you are doing exactly what you hate in your opponents--you offer something that is merely logically possible, but practically speaking impossible.
Your huge mistake was trying to ride me as if I was saying that this is what should be made, instead of seeing it for what I said it was which was a challenge to show how a system COULD be made. The existence of a death penalty within a system does NOT INHERENTLY mean it will have to kill innocents.
If the only systems you can propose are those we are "practically certain" lead to no deaths, then it DOES mean that the death penalty system inherently kills innocent people.
The only way to KNOW if a system can produce convictions practically is to get into the nitty gritty and hash it all out, and see if it's "practically certain" that somebody would actually die from it. I showed genuine interest to go that route with you, but you responded by ... well no response. Just:
Well this is why I was so insulted by the "why don't you show us your system already" jibes. There are many different types of systems, and we could build in some redundancies. And of course I have always maintained an appeals process.
I wasn't jibing you at all, and you have no reason to accuse me of it. I wanted to discuss a system, because I think it's interesting, and I thought you would have some good ideas. I had no idea I would have to do your work for you (i.e. propose a system) like Tagless did, in order to hear more about your ideas. And I had no idea you'd be insulted by showing a willingness to listen to your ideas, which you explicitly stated as willing to discuss in your OP.
This message has been edited by Ben, Friday, 2005/04/15 06:44 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Silent H, posted 04-14-2005 12:46 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Silent H, posted 04-14-2005 6:07 PM Ben! has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 161 of 236 (199408)
04-14-2005 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by crashfrog
04-14-2005 4:40 PM


I'm not adjusting the rules. I'm recognizing that different rules give us different levels of confidence about their conclusions. That's not a contentious position, to my knowledge. For the death penalty, which is irreversable, I demand a higher level of confidence
When you figure out that the above specifically says that you are for adjusting rules, you let me know.
I'll try one time to point it out:
You recognize different rules give different levels of confidence.
For X, because of quality Y, you demand higher levels of confidence.
That means by any way you want to look at it, based on a nonepistemological question, you choose to adjust the rules.
Wait, I think I just got it. You are not understanding what I meant by adjust the rules. I didn't mean change the rules within the same system, I mean change (switch) to as different system.
You can call it for higher confidence, but I am pointing out that if by confidence you mean according to epistemic standards such as those held by science you are not.
A higher set of standards would exclude more logical possibilities from consideration, not open them up.
I think you are equivocating between confidence in correct idea to reality match, with confidence in not doing the wrong thing. The latter is an emotional assessment which does not require the former to be true.
As apparently this demand is shared by many, I don't find it unreasonable. Apparently you do?
It is not unreasonable to hold the position that when something is important you end up wanting to use different criteria. What is unreasonable is to adopt that same criteria for essentially the same reason someone else does, and then say they are wrong.
It is also unreasonable not to admit when the criteria you used to switch methods matches another case, and yet you did not switch it at that time.
It is also unreasonable to construct arguments that other systems are not possible, or can have a better, or specified, result with respect to a subject, without ever addressing that other system and simply repeating your own as if its the best and only method.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by crashfrog, posted 04-14-2005 4:40 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by crashfrog, posted 04-14-2005 6:04 PM Silent H has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 162 of 236 (199412)
04-14-2005 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Silent H
04-14-2005 5:04 PM


But for practical purposes, mixed with some fixes (one example is falsifiability), practical knowledge is possible.
I, and many others here, want more than practical certainty for the administration of the death penalty. Practical certainty isn't good enough.
Why is that hard for you to understand? It seems perfectly straighforward and reasonable to me.
Its not just a binary situation.
Well, yes, it is. Either the man committed the crime he's accused of, or he did not. There's no third possibility, and those two possibilities are mutually exclusive.
On what planet do you live where a man can have both committed a certain crime and not have committed that same crime?
I do not see the situation as it being he is guilty or he is innocent.
?
That's literally the situation at hand. Guilt or innocence. That's what courts determine. If you don't "see the situation as it being he is guilty or he is innocent", then there's simply no reasoning with you, as you aren't arguing from a basis in reality.
In order for a person's innocence to be LOGICALLY impossible, one would by LOGICAL NECESSITY be requiring that all LOGICALLY POSSIBLE scenarios of his innocence be entertained.
Yes. Not, necessarily, with equal wieght amongst themselves, but they do have to be entertained to some degree, unless they can be totally, logically eliminated.
I do not require all LOGICAL POSSIBILITIES from being addressed before a state kills someone. I am very comfortable with that.
So is, apparently, the Federal government - with the result being that demonstratably innocent people are being executed.
So much for what you're comfortable with. The rest of us, who abhor injustice, aren't comfortable with it.
The key is not to choose a system that will kill an innocent person.
Sure. Fine. Your system can. Next system. Here's mine - the system where we never apply the death penalty. Done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Silent H, posted 04-14-2005 5:04 PM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Ben!, posted 01-16-2006 10:54 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 163 of 236 (199415)
04-14-2005 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Silent H
04-14-2005 5:47 PM


You are not understanding what I meant by adjust the rules. I didn't mean change the rules within the same system, I mean change (switch) to as different system.
You yourself have pointed out that we use different systems in different situations, when the stakes are different. You yourself pointed out that we don't apply the rigorous scientific method to every fact we encounter in our day to day life.
So what's the problem? We employ different systems for different situations, because of the different levels of confidence in our conclusions that the different systems provide. That doesn't seem like a contentious position to me.
A higher set of standards would exclude more logical possibilities from consideration, not open them up.
That's the point - excluding possibilities is the point. If we're going to execute someone, I want a system to have been applied that is able to completely exclude the possibility that he's innocent. "Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." I want a set of standards so high they can show that the condemn's innocence would be impossible.
What's the issue with that?
It is also unreasonable not to admit when the criteria you used to switch methods matches another case, and yet you did not switch it at that time.
Unless that case was the case of a person, with a full quality of life and in total possession of their faculties convicted of a crime and sentenced to be executed, and I rather suspect it's not, then its not relevant to this discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Silent H, posted 04-14-2005 5:47 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 164 of 236 (199417)
04-14-2005 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Ben!
04-14-2005 5:42 PM


Shoot I think I missed a post of yours. I'm sorry about that but I am getting swamped. If it makes it any better I'll stop answering crash to start answering you.
You've barely outlined some parts of your system, and it's already convicting "only 1 case in 100 years." (your own wild guess). By the time you actually fill out your own system explicitly, THAT NUMBER IS GOING TO INCREASE.
You've pulled that quote out of context. Crash was arguing that one of the potential criteria for a system which I mentioned would essentially make giving anyone a death sentence impossible, or rather unlikely. So he asked if its unlikely to ever be used because of such stringent criteria (or easy ways out) why not just chuck it?
My response (which you quoted) was that someone could argue that (I threw out some low number to fit that argument) and so say it is impractical to have the sentence as it would be a waste of money (for upkeep).
In your "practically certain" space of knowing, proposing such a system is IDENTICAL to proposing a logically impossible system; i.e. "we'll kill only those whose DNA identically matches that of Mickey Mantle and Ted Williams."
Yeah, I wasn't trying to get at that kind of logically impossible system.
It's wrong to hold people to the criterion of "practical certainty" for knowledge, yet not hold to the criterion of "practical certainty" for your system.
I think you are not understanding what role that plays. I am definitely saying it SHOULD hold for my system.
If you are saying this because you have not seen a system clearly outlined yet, all I can say is I finally got two people working with me to start with the thought experiments. That said, I think some practical requirements have been met.
I wasn't jibing you at all, and you have no reason to accuse me of it.
Oh man, I wasn't refering to you. I am totally sorry if that's how it read.
I wanted to discuss a system, because I think it's interesting, and I thought you would have some good ideas. I had no idea I would have to do your work for you (i.e. propose a system) like Tagless did, in order to hear more about your ideas.
Great great. Yes. I am totally sorry this all looked like an attack on you and an effort to duck. Yes we CAN discuss it and no you don't have to propose a system yourself.
The root of this thread was simply to show that others could genuinely come up with some systems on their own, and how to do it, because there ARE multiple systems possible. Yeah I definitely have my own ideas and since we already have some things moving, sure I'll start giving a bit more of myself.
I will start tomorrow. Let me explain something as a forward apology. On top of trying to deal with the flurry of posts, I am currently dealing with a pretty serious illness. In fact I will be gone at least three days next week due to surgery (or if it goes, bad perhaps longer).
If I had caught this post earlier, or not missed your earlier post, I would have gone ahead and discussed more today. But right now it midnight and I really need to sleep.
I will write tomorrow. Guaranteed. And I will give your posts higher priority. Man do I feel bad all over the place. I really did not mean to insult you in any way at all.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Ben!, posted 04-14-2005 5:42 PM Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Ben!, posted 04-14-2005 9:47 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 169 by jar, posted 04-14-2005 10:05 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 165 of 236 (199422)
04-14-2005 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Silent H
04-14-2005 11:57 AM


quote:
Isn't the topic instead: the possibility of a system designed to kill people accidentally resulting in a wrongful death?
No, this is not a flying guillotine or something.
The purpose of a court is to find guilt or innocence regarding a crime and then assess proper sentences for the crime. As part of the sentencing phase the death penalty option need not even come into play if we set rules (neccessary requirements) regarding level of evidence such that it is a practical certainty that no innocents will be killed.
I've read over this again and again, and I can't at all understand why you start with "no" as if you're disagreeing with me. We ARE talking about a system designed to execute people (who meet a certain level of "certainty"), by your description above.
"The claim that it is IMPOSSIBLE to come up with a system that employs the death penalty and NOT kill an innocent person"
Well, I would say it is IMPOSSIBLE to come up with a system which employs the death penalty and GUARANTEE that an innocent person won't be executed.
Is this a "lie"?
"One of the biggest catches would have to be an inclusion of the requirement that the suspect freely confesses and does not dispute the confession during trial or after, on top of the body of evidence.
Two words: Paul Ingram.
Talk about absurd! But it happened.
If you do not see that "risk involved" and "taking life is a very large risk" is a moral supposition, especially when used to scale down epistemology, then there is nothing more for me to say. It is pretty obvious.
The only moral supposition I'm making is that killing innocent people is bad, and should be avoided. I hope that's included as basic assumption of this conversation. If not, then there's no point in it, since there's no reason to be careful at all about who we execute.
But here's the analogy again...
Levels of certainty must scale to the risk involved. The purposeful destruction of an immortal soul is a very large risk, and is completely irreversible
I also hope it's a shared assumption in this discussion that innocent lives exist. Is it a shared assumption in this discussion that souls exist?
Ughhhh... that is an awful analogy.
Yes, it was. But the only thing I wanted to get across was the difference between knowledge and practical application. I was in a rush, give me a break, it was the best I could come up with in the time alotted!
Yes we can, but then we don't logically have to.
No, it is not logically required, by rules of formal logic. Insert the moral supposition "killing innoncent people is bad" here...
Am I willing to risk rational judgement and argument (i.e. logic) in order to make sure I can say at least I didn't "risk" the life of a guy who says he killed people and people say he killed people and all well tested evidence says he killed people?
I would say no.
Would you?
No, I wouldn't "risk rational judgement". But throwing the guy away for life instead of killing him isn't risking rational judgement, is it?
What are you willing to risk executing someone for? What is your "bet" that you would accept?
Personally I am willing to accept the level of evidence that was collected and presented for both Dahmer and Gacy.
OK, you're in a room with God. He's going to reveal The Truth about Dahmer.
He says if you're right in your judgment about Dahmer's guilt, God will give you a crisp $100 dollar bill. If you're wrong, he'll kill 1 person, randomly selected from the Earth's population.
Do you take the bet?
This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 04-14-2005 05:43 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Silent H, posted 04-14-2005 11:57 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024