Amanda Knox's Kangaroo Trials

[Pragmaticone]

... If a person can't be proven guilty - the evidence isn't quantifiable - then let him/her go. It's that simple. If the person is ten percent likely to be guilty of a monster crime, then you still don't incarcerate him/her. Instead you monitor him/her electronically.
That does nothing to answer the question as to her guilt or innocence. Simply proving that there is insufficient evidence to legally convict one of a crime does not prove the accused could not have possibly done the dirty deed.

The Scientific method is to make a theory that can be tested and then make a test. Scientists are constantly working in this mode on life's greatest mysteries.
The scientific method cannot be successfully applied to normative issues.

[HumanRights]

After thinking about it for awhile, I believe the existence of God can be proven.

I'll give you a analogous problem to illustrate methodology in verifying the existence of God.
You are given a sealed cigar box. It contains a small object. You have to figure out what that object is. You can, you know. The laws of physics will reveal what's in the box (without xrays or ultra sound). You can calculate density, size weight, Coef of friction and many other parameters quite quickly.

BTW, Amanda is absolutely innocent.

Sorry, but your attempts to reduce everyone's arguments to strawman opinions are not accurate.

[Pragmaticone]

After thinking about it for awhile, I believe the existence of God can be proven.
Not with scientific reasoning it can't.

I'll give you a analogous problem to illustrate methodology in verifying the existence of God.
You are given a sealed cigar box. It contains a small object. You have to figure out what that object is. You can, you know. The laws of physics will reveal what's in the box (without xrays or ultra sound). You can calculate density, size weight, Coef of friction and many other parameters quite quickly.
That will only tell you what the properties of the object are, not what the object is.

BTW, Amanda is absolutely innocent.
In your opinion.

Sorry, but your attempts to reduce everyone's arguments to strawman opinions are not accurate.
All arguments are not opinions...some are statements of fact.

[HumanRights]

Not with scientific reasoning it can't.

Oh yes it can.

That will only tell you what the properties of the object are, not what the object is.

You mean you couldn't tell the difference between an eraser and a push button writing pen?

BTW, Amanda is absolutely innocent.

In your opinion.

Only facts, no opinions.

Sorry, but your attempts to reduce everyone's arguments to strawman opinions are not accurate.

All arguments are not opinions...some are statements of fact.

You can say with 100% confidence that some facts are more than 50% likely and you can say with 50% confidence that some facts are 100% likely. They are still facts.

[Pragmaticone]

Not with scientific reasoning it can't.

Oh yes it can.
How?

That will only tell you what the properties of the object are, not what the object is.

You mean you couldn't tell the difference between an eraser and a push button writing pen?
Sure, they would exhibit different properties.

BTW, Amanda is absolutely innocent.

In your opinion.

Only facts, no opinions.
I think you really imagine that to be true.

Sorry, but your attempts to reduce everyone's arguments to strawman opinions are not accurate.

All arguments are not opinions...some are statements of fact.

You can say with 100% confidence that some facts are more than 50% likely and you can say with 50% confidence that some facts are 100% likely. They are still facts.

[HumanRights]

God's existence and Amanda's innocence are like the pen in the box; there's only indirect proof. Nobody's seen God.

Guede twice said Amanda wasn't there. Amanda said she wasn't there. Amanda's boyfriend said she wasn't there. The prosecutor who wasn't there, said she was. Who would you trust?

[Pragmaticone]

God's existence and Amanda's innocence are like the pen in the box; there's only indirect proof.
What is the indirect proof that god exists or that there is a pen in the box?
Guede twice said Amanda wasn't there. Amanda said she wasn't there. Amanda's boyfriend said she wasn't there. The prosecutor who wasn't there, said she was. Who would you trust?
The final outcome of due process.

[Jack of Hearts]

What is the indirect proof that god exists...

Consciousness, - silly. (Direct proof is YOU!)

[Pragmaticone]

(Direct proof is YOU!)

I am speaking of the god of the bible. But there is also no direct proof that any of the other gods conceived of by man actually exist. Personally, I do not believe a proof is needed. People can construct their own personal version of god in their mind and join with others of like mind to worship and follow that god freely in this great nation.

[HumanRights]

Prag,

If you say: "I believe that Amanda is guilty" that is just another useless opinion/value judgement.
If you say: "I believe that Amanda is guilty because the court found her so" that is a double fallacy (authority & circular reasoning) and is sub worthless.
If you say: "I believe that Amanda is guilty" because of a microscopic bit of DNA on the knife, that is a factual statement. Other facts prove it wrong, but at least the statement is factual and a basis for discussion.

[Pragmaticone]

Prag,

If you say: "I believe that Amanda is guilty" that is just another useless opinion/value judgement.
It is not "useless", but it is an opinion.
If you say: "I believe that Amanda is guilty because the court found her so" that is a double fallacy (authority & circular reasoning) and is sub worthless.
I did not say that. The fact the court found her guilty only means she is legally guilty. She may or may not have done the murder...but I believe she did.
If you say: "I believe that Amanda is guilty" because of a microscopic bit of DNA on the knife, that is a factual statement. Other facts prove it wrong, but at least the statement is factual and a basis for discussion.
If other facts prove your hypothetical statement false, then it is not a factual statement.

[HumanRights]

If you say: "I believe that Amanda is guilty" because of a microscopic bit of DNA on the knife, that is a factual statement. Other facts prove it wrong, but at least the statement is factual and a basis for discussion.

If other facts prove your hypothetical statement false, then it is not a factual statement.

The statement can be factual, but the hypothesis can be wrong.
Your value judgements require comparisons between sets of data.

On one side of your value judgement you have a bit of DNA of a miniscule size ususlly associated contamination.
On the other side of the value judgement you have several other pieces of forensic evidence that showed:
1) Absolutely no blood on the knife.
2) The knife was the wrong size to have caused the wound.
3) The bloody outline of a knife on the sheets didn't match the knife Amanda used.
4) The knife wasn't found at the scene nor was it discarded or hidden.
5) Guede the first person to murder Kertcher, was known to carry a knife that would have matched the wounds and the outline on the sheet.

So you weigh the value of five pieces of evidence against the one and make a value judgement. What's your value judgement Prag?

[Pragmaticone]

The statement can be factual, but the hypothesis can be wrong.
That is absurd.
Your value judgements require comparisons between sets of data.
Nope, they require only the application of my subjective beliefs, prejudices, and biases. Quantitative analysis requires objective data.
So you weigh the value of five pieces of evidence against the one and make a value judgement. What's your value judgement Prag?
That Knox committed the murder.

[HumanRights]

Opinions don't require any honesty even with yourself.

From Wikipedia:

In its disparaging sense the term value judgment implies a conclusion is insular, one-sided, and not objective — contrasting with judgments based upon deliberation, balance and rationality.

Most commonly the term value judgment refers to an individual's opinion.

Why even bother to learn that term...

[HumanRights]

OK, Prag, I got the definition of "value judgement" incorrect, so I'll rephrase that:

The statement can be factual, but the hypothesis can be wrong. For example: I saw Jane wearing a pink dress an hour ago, so she is wearing a pink dress. {but the hypothesis is wrong since she changed her dress a half hour ago}

On one side of your scale of justice you have a bit of DNA of a miniscule size ususlly associated contamination.
On the other side of your scale of justice you have several other pieces of forensic evidence that showed:

1) Absolutely no blood on the knife.
2) The knife was the wrong size to have caused the wound.
3) The bloody outline of a knife on the sheets didn't match the knife Amanda used.
4) The knife wasn't found at the scene nor was it discarded or hidden.
5) Guede - the first person to murder Kertcher - was known to carry a knife that would have matched the wounds and the outline on the sheet.

So you weigh the value of five pieces of evidence against the one. Which side is down?