Guests may browse all the site, but only registered users can post in the main forums.
Unregistered users may post in the Free Range Talk Forum

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
sources vs. experience
#11
(05-14-2016, 02:10 PM)'PleaseReportToTheFrontDesk' Wrote: Ah, but he's pretty awesome in all the ways that count.
 
TMI
I don't need to know about your sex life.

 
"For if man has lost his freedom, and is forced to serve sin, and cannot will good, what conclusion can more justly be drawn concerning him, than that he sins and wills evil necessarily" - Martin Luther.
Reply
#12
I don't know if I mentioned this, but for one year I worked in a law firm.  We did civil litigation, mostly asbestos lawsuits.  The firm I worked for represented families who had loved ones die from asbestos related illnesses.  At trial, we would bring in a pulmonologist who stated emphatically that asbestos caused the cancer.  The pulmonologist for the other side was equally sure it was the 30 years of smoking.  We brought in an economist to state the family's financial losses as a result of the death.  So did the other side.  Always, our numbers were higher than their's.  We brought in an expert, they brought in an expert.  All with more Ph.D.s than you can shake a stick at.  So how does a jury decide?  We help them, of course.  If the deceased was Black, Latino, White, we'd bring in experts who were Black, Latino, White.  So did the other side.  So how does the jury really decide?

First, let's be clear no pulmonologists, economists or other experts will be allowed on the jury.  So you have a bunch of guys with no particular expertise passing judgement, making million dollar decisions on what boils down to educated guesswork.  

So if person "A" posts a link and person "B" posts a link that seemingly contradicts the first, unless we have some expertise, we'll be doing nothing more than making educated guesses as to which link is accurate, assuming one is and the other is not.  Of course posters can help us out, by pointing out that one link is a liberal source, while the other poster can help us out by telling us the other link is from a conservative source.  That'll help.  Not.    
 
Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.  
Reply
#13
That's an excellent description of a serious problem with our jury system.


 
Reply
#14
When it comes to serious thing such as weather, I simply consult Brietbart so I can be assured that the weather for the day is going to be the complete and utter end of of all western white domininated civilization as we know it.  

But on the realizees, I get my coffee, stroll into the back compound area with dogs, and suck in some morning air.  Twist the shoulder and pivot on the right knee.  Look at the sky and hope.  Then I go in and look at the NWS Wichita Kansas and look at the god damn forecast.
 
Natural selection will never favor Evangelical misfits


Reply
#15
(05-14-2016, 07:07 PM)'jafs 2' Wrote: That's an excellent description of a serious problem with our jury system.


 

 
If you think what I've described is bad, let me add something that makes it even worse.  The courts are backed up.  Cases get consolidated, just to deal with the crunch of numbers.  To deal with that, the courts limit each side to one expert for each discipline.  Each side gets to call one pulmonologist, one economist, etc.  That prevents deep pocket corporations from essentially overwhelming opponents who might not be able to afford many experts.  However, it has the effect that one side or the other could put on the stand an expert who sounds good, looks good, but has opinions far outside mainstream thought within their area of expertise.  And again, with a jury that lacks the expertise to detect what's basically a well paid fraud, the jury is really just guessing.  

As a hypothetical, Jafs, think if the issue of global warming were on trial, with each side allowed one expert only.  Now you know and I know that 97% of scientists come down on one side of the equation while only 3% are on the other side.  The jury doesn't know of the 97%-3% split.  The experts on the stand will be 50%-50%, not at all what the scientific community as a whole thinks.  The jury would be left to guess.  


 
Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.  
Reply
#16
(05-14-2016, 05:28 PM)'RETICENT_IRREVERENT' Wrote: TMI
I don't need to know about your sex life.

 

 

Just as I didn't need to know about your boring coffee experiences at home.

 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If I don't answer when you talk to me or about me, that's likely because I have you on ignore.  Try to PM me. It won't let you PM me if I have you on ignore. There are other people, not members, who peruse this site. I want THEM to know why I don't reply to everyone who talks to or about me.
Reply
#17
(05-14-2016, 08:39 PM)'Iamme1' Wrote: If you think what I've described is bad, let me add something that makes it even worse.  The courts are backed up.  Cases get consolidated, just to deal with the crunch of numbers.  To deal with that, the courts limit each side to one expert for each discipline.  Each side gets to call one pulmonologist, one economist, etc.  That prevents deep pocket corporations from essentially overwhelming opponents who might not be able to afford many experts.  However, it has the effect that one side or the other could put on the stand an expert who sounds good, looks good, but has opinions far outside mainstream thought within their area of expertise.  And again, with a jury that lacks the expertise to detect what's basically a well paid fraud, the jury is really just guessing.  

As a hypothetical, Jafs, think if the issue of global warming were on trial, with each side allowed one expert only.  Now you know and I know that 97% of scientists come down on one side of the equation while only 3% are on the other side.  The jury doesn't know of the 97%-3% split.  The experts on the stand will be 50%-50%, not at all what the scientific community as a whole thinks.  The jury would be left to guess.  


 

 
Well, theoretically, good lawyers will question experts and expose some of that stuff, I would think.

For example, they could ask whether or not this particular expert testimony is mainstream or not shared by many others in the field.

But it's an extension of the original problem, for sure.




 
Reply
#18
Believe what you want.  You guys make it too complex.
 
Winner.
Winner.

Chicken Dinner.


Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Our Amazon Picks


Donate With PayPal