Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Perceptions of Reality
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 114 of 305 (364651)
11-18-2006 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by RAZD
11-18-2006 5:26 PM


Re: Pulling in comments from other threads ... part 2
There seems to me to be a contradiction here in what is "fact" and what is "evidence":
(1) Things I can touch and see etc are evidences. From the evidence I can infer the facts.
(2) The jury's primary role is to determine the facts based on an evaluation of all the evidence the judge rules admissible.
You'll have to explain the contradiction.
1) I see some evidence. I use the evidence to determine a fact.
2) The jury is shown some evidence. They use that evidence to determine a fact.
Seems the same to me.
If one of these pieces of evidence had NOT been experienced by someone, then it would be fantasy, lies, delusion or something of that ilk.
Yes - obviously someone has to have seen the evidence to draw a conclusion. I can see a dinosaur fossil, but I cannot see that dinosaurs used to be living animals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2006 5:26 PM RAZD 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