champu 1 #201 July 23, 2009 Quote>probabilistically You mean to say, they function on inductive probability? No, that is not what I meant to say. I also don't mean to hold a lecture on stochastic processes here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FreeflyChile 0 #202 July 23, 2009 Quote>Jury trials. Deductive validity, inductive strength, emotion. Twelve angry men illustrates this process quite well. They show how those arguing "guilty" in that case do not have deductively valid arguments. Then they are shown how their arguments arent even possible. Then the last man voting "guilty" ends up in an emotional rage, until finally he says "not guilty." They still use logic. Your question was limited to lawyers and judges, made no mention of juries, so I was just answering the question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #203 July 23, 2009 >>Fun thought experiments, but otherwise utterly useless. >Your question was limited to lawyers and judges, made no mention of juries, so I was just answering the question Which question? I was negating the first statement of this post, which was written by (I think) pirana. So, your example, Jury trials, is another situation in which logic is used for the benefit of humanity. Great! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,034 #204 July 23, 2009 QuoteQuote>It's OK, using the Rehmwa criterion you are well in the lead. Explain. Pragmatism combined with the "it's none of my business what your beliefs are" point of view trumps hypotheticals and mental self gratification That is not the particular criterion I had in mind, but it works.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #205 July 23, 2009 Yep. It's just not the main issue, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
