Zephan,
quote:
Reasonable people understand the gross error of shifting the burden of proof, which is precisely what occured when the question was turned around on me by Mark24. Such a tactic concedes defeat and clearly demonstrates the lack of understanding of what evidence is, especially in light of the glaring fact that the word "evidence" is so generously, although erroneously, utilized in these discussions.
Why is the burden of proof on me to define evidence & not you? In point of fact, YOU started claiming that you knew what evidence was coz you're a big shot lawyer, not I, the burden of proof is therefore on YOU to define it. You asked a question of me, that doesn't place the burden of proof on me, right? If I had made as superior a claim as you regarding evidence, then I would reasonably be expected to back up my blather. But I'm not claiming I have a special understanding of evidence that science somehow has passed all of science by, you are. The burden of proof is therefore with the claimant, & it's you, Zephan, not I.
Regardless, if you cast your mind back when you asked for a definition in your appletoast incarnation, I gave you one. I then asked you to reciprocate, & you have spent the remaining time refusing to do so. I even started a thread on these boards so you could share your wisdom, but still you refused.
This then begs the question: What is the point in attempting to discuss something with someone who refuses to agree terms in the first place? The only possible answer is; none whatsoever. Your posts are of the form, "you are sooo wrong, but I'm not telling you why, I'm a lawyer so I know what I'm talking about", well, I've seen no evidence of that, you can't even get Daubert, & the scope of your own rules of evidence right. So I have no reason to trust any definition of evidence you might provide unless backed by a relevant cite.
You can whine about evidence as much as you like, but until you are forthcoming with your own definitions of relevant terms, there is absolutely no reason to take your objections seriously.
quote:
Nevertheless, I am immune from the insults because I really do know something about real evidence. I am, in fact, an expert in evidence (and arguments from the evidence) as most lawyers who practice daily in a court of law should be.
No, you are an expert in evidence in a legal context only. The Federal Rules of Evidence state clearly in the scope statement that the rules apply only to US courts, & nowhere else. It is true that science is admissible in the courtroom, but in no way claims it is allowed to tell science what is & isn't acceptable in the lab & field. In fact, it makes clear that it doesn't.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
™ Version 4.2