Zephan: What is Evidence?

I am not sure which is more irritating, your arrogance or your ignorance. Here is the type of Journal where you can find the rules for scientific evidence that you are looking for. The general rules that have been cited can be found there.
Philosophy of Science
While I do not know whether or not you are really a lawyer (although I tend to doubt it) I can state as a fact that you know little to nothing about science, inside the courtroom or out.

OK Zephan, I will play.FIrst, Rules of Evidence is a legal not a scientific term. You have already been told this but let us go into "your" arena. Here is a link to a site from the LSU law school, they should know something about legel evidence shouldn't they?
Legal Eagle
So what constitutes allowable science under the legal rules of evidence is contained in the above site, basically they information must conform to the scientific method, I have inserted their link for your convenience
Real Science
And guess what, much of the definition for what constitutes real science falls under the Philosophy of Science, a group of scientists and academics who try to determine how science really works. WHich links back to the peer reviewed journal which you demanded and I supplied. Just in case you lost it please transfer your attention to
Zephrams requested peer reviewed journal wherein you will find the definitions for what constitutes real science, the scientific method and therefore science acceptable under your requested Rules of Evidence.Goodbye Zephan, you are the weakest link ------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

"Thank youuu,...Thank you very muuuch"
Elvis has now LEFT the building ------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

Zephan, please refer to the earlier post where I linked you to sites which will help you in the definition, both legal and scientific, of what constitutes legal evidence of acceptable science (legally at least) as well as defining why your question is not really a good one, the proper question is what constitues good science and what IS science.
Post 57, evidence------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 04-04-2003][This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 04-04-2003]

Hi Admin, I offered him a combination legal/scientific definition (as applicable) complete with a reference to the peer reviewed journal for defining what science is back in post 57. If he can either accept or provide REASONS for rejecting it maybe we can move this forward.PS, I can not find directions to link to a specific numbered post. Is that possible? I thought that it was.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

Thanks, I knew how to write in the code so that it would not appear as the full address but I was unaware that I could just attatch the post number and it would act as a direct adddress. Cool ------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

Ok Zephram, I am a scientist (Biochemist by training although I have done everything from Biochemical Engineering to Cell Biology) and I am a Director of Process Development in the Biotechnology industry.Now, you claim to be a lawyer; what field or speciality? And please be specific.By the way, you are trying to argue semantics about science and scientific definitions with people who truly understand science (which you do not); that may explain why you are getting your rear end lopped off, roasted and handed back to you. My brother, who truly is a lawyer, is at least smart enough to know better, at least with me. 'Course, I am not stupid enough to argue the fine points of law with him so it evens out .------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

quote:

---

If you really believe a lawyer is intimidated by cross-examining an alleged expert, you are sadly mistaken.

---

Another very poor attempt at misdirection, everyone who has read this knows that I did not say this. I stated that my brother, the lawyer, did not debate science (or philosophy for that matter), with me because he knows better. Just as I do not debate law with him. We recognize the level of ability of the other in their area of expertise.

quote:

---

That you continue to embellish yourself as the gatekeeper of esoteric knowledge has been wildly entertaining. I'm even sure your brother would get a kick out of it.

---

Another poor attempt Zephan, I never characterized myself as such as you well know, I just saif that I understand it better than YOU. And actually my brother does call me for advice concerning biotech.

quote:

---

I will simply say this: if you are unable to articulate its import in plain language on this board, one may assume you've yet to comprehend the concepts yourself.

---

Who said that I couldn't, you were the one who asked for peer reviewed journals. First off, you have been told repeatedly that your question was actually the first error in a long string of errors. You actually seem to understand this in part.

quote:

---

there is no generally accepted valid, reliable, and credible definition of scientific evidence; there are no rules of scientific evidence in existence.

---

The problem is it is not so much what is scientific evidence as what is science and what constitutes data in science. Now, as to the first part and my description, drawn in part from people who work in the area and submit to your required peer reviewed journal.Science first assumes that all is not Maya, ie illusion, and that what we see, hear, ect is real. Whether or not it is merely a partial representation of a larger reality is actually immaterial as we need to measure ALL of reality in a fashion fit for our senses. What is science is generally a question meant as what gathering, determination and anlysis of the data fits within the scientific method. And the general definition of that is widely dabated but generally falls within blend of different methods, including inductive, popperian, kuhnian, ect all of which constitute a partial description of "science". These include falsification, allowing the data to lead you to a better definition of reality, and recognizing the role of social constructs in the selection and interpretation of the data. These are the components of science, and make up what you have erroenously been refering to as "scientific evidence", in fact they are the basic components of the definition of the scientific method and therefor fall under the legal definition of what a court calls scientific evidence, as I refered you to in post 57.

quote:

---

In closing, if you are under the impression that the only people who understand "science" are evolutionists, it would do you well to explain why.

---

Another strawman, although this one may be a little better than many others, but only a little. While is is important to an understanding of biology and life it is not to cosmology, although I am not sure that you see the difference.

quote:

---

Evolution is useless to science and quite a joke; it has contributed absolutely nothing to any meaningful advancement of mankind in any scientific field of inquiry.

---

Gross error or a lie, your choice. The advancement of most areas of biology derive directly from the theories that underlie an understanding of evolution. But then you would need to understand biology to understand that and from these posts and others I do not see that understanding in your statements.

quote:

---

If I were only so lucky to have an opposing party call you as an expert witness, I would surely demonstrate at your expense for all to see the manifestation of "getting your rear end lopped off, roasted, and handed back to you."

---

Like you have on this board? Sorry child, go back and try again.