Nobel Prize vs Proof that the Death Penalty MUST kill innocents

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. 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 - WikipediaNow, 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 - WikipediaAnd 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.

---

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? 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.

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?

Which is funny, because that's exactly what I just said. 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?

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. 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? ?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. 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. 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. Sure. Fine. Your system can. Next system. Here's mine - the system where we never apply the death penalty. Done.

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. 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? 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.

"If you haven't got your health, you haven't got anything."Sorry to hear about your troubles, bud. Take it easy.