Nobel Prize vs Proof that the Death Penalty MUST kill innocents

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?

quote:

---

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".

---

Still doesn't protect against bias such as racism.

quote:

---

2. Since these panels would not be meeting on a regular basis, the judges could be notified and then meet at a designated location.

---

Same problem as above.

quote:

---

3. The names of the judges would not be divulged.

---

...except somebody knows who they are, and that person could be more or less corrupt.

quote:

---

4. All judges must agree on the final verdict.

---

A randomly selected group of judges could still all be biased or racist.

quote:

---

5. Also, let's remember that it is not everyday that a detective gets lucky enough to get the evidence list holmes presented.

---

I am considering this, but that still doesn't protect against the bias I mentioned.

quote:

---

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.

---

No, Gould is not God.But, his definition of "fact" and "theory" are widely accepted and used among scientists around the world. Certainly, they like it over at TalkOrigins, and lots of the Evos on this board have used it many times to explain to Creos how science cannot ever "prove" anything.I was just wondering if you agreed with him.So, do you agree with him or not?

quote:

---

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.

---

Wait, where is this "logical" possibility coming from?I thought we were talking about your "practical possibility", which doesn't seem to be the same as a "logical possibility". I assume you can't possibly mean "logical possibilities" in this case.Anyway, how do you know that you only have one practical possibility left? How do you know that you have thought of every possible choice?

quote:

---

Provisional acceptance, when it means accepting the equality of theories that are normally rejected, would be a bad idea in my mind.

---

This is not at all what Gould or I mean by "provisional acceptance".There is nothing in the definition that mentions anything about "accepting the equality of theories that are normaly rejected".Here is the pertinent part of the quote, bold added by me: Clearly, Gould does not think that rejected theories deserve equal time, as the last sentence above shows, evern though he accepts that, however small the chance, all facts and theories could be wrong.If your contention is that facts and theories in science can ever be accepted beyond tentativity and provisional acceptance, can you show me which facts and theories in science are not allowed to be tested?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-15-2005 08:09 AM

Be well, holmes.