Nobel Prize vs Proof that the Death Penalty MUST kill innocents

Trying very hard to humbly not pick sides on this one I just have one major question which I think gets to the root of why holmes is pushing at you.Why does tentativity apply in the case of a conviction but not in the case of a medical diagnosis?You may have a very good reason to apply that standard differently which is why I am curious but it seems very clear that the standard of tentativity IS being applied differently.

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

I understand your subjective reasoning behind the two differences and I happen to agree with you. I think the confusion boils down to: THere is obviously no application of tentativity with regards to both procedural issues such as "will of the subject" or technical issues such as "really was dead already".I can only concieve of two ways you can properly argue against this. One would be to point out the tentativity that I am not seeing. The other would be to explain the disparity.I feel that holmes might be putting you off by seemingly calling you a hypocrite. I hope I am not doing the same.

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

So just plainly you feel that the different situations subjectivly require different degrees of tentativity?If no is there an abstract reason that eliminates the subjectivity?

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show