18-06-2012, 06:06 PM
Ed,
I am perfectly aware of how a jury may determine guilt of innocence in a court of law in the USA.
I am not referring to a court of law but the presentation and determination of scientific evidence which is very different from the legal standard of evidence.
Scientific Evidence:
"In scientific research evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory or other controlled conditions. Scientific evidence usually goes towards supporting or rejecting a hypothesis.
One must always remember that the burden of proof is on the person making a contentious claim. Within science, this translates to the burden resting on presenters of a paper, in which the presenters argue for their specific findings. This paper is placed before a panel of judges where the presenter must defend the thesis against all challenges.
When evidence is contradictory to predicted expectations, the evidence and the ways of making it are often closely scrutinized (see experimenter's regress) and only at the end of this process is the hypothesis rejected: this can be referred to as 'refutation of the hypothesis'. The rules for evidence used by science are collected systematically in an attempt to avoid the bias inherent to anecdotal evidence."
Law:
"The law of evidence encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence can be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision and, sometimes, the weight that may be given to that evidence. The law of evidence is also concerned with the quantum (amount), quality, and type of proof needed to prevail in litigation.
The quantum of evidence is the amount of evidence needed; the quality of proof is how reliable such evidence should be considered. This includes such concepts as hearsay, authentication, admissibility, reasonable doubt, and clear and convincing evidence.
There are several types of evidence, depending on the form or source. Evidence governs the use of testimony (e.g., oral or written statements, such as an affidavit), exhibits (e.g., physical objects), documentary material, or demonstrative evidence, which are admissible (i.e., allowed to be considered by the trier of fact, such as jury) in a judicial or administrative proceeding (e.g., a court of law).
When a dispute, whether relating to a civil or criminal matter, reaches the court there will always be a number of issues which one party will have to prove in order to persuade the court to find in his or her favour. The law must ensure certain guidelines are set out in order to ensure that evidence presented to the court can be regarded as trustworthy."
If you are satisfied with dog and pony shows and .. if it does not fit you must acquit approach to this matter... go for it. You can collect all sorts of people who don't even NEED to study the visual record and derive data from it and apply the laws of mechanics, physics and so forth and just opine from the standing as a theologist or a biologist or whatever. That won't work for me.
To me this is not about swaying minds and convincing people to believe something but the understanding of a complex technical event... and let's set aside the politics when we try to understand it. Science should be a no politics zone in my book.
If the conclusion is akin to *an inside job* and CD you better have some well authenticated and clear and convincing evidence to made such a claim. I don't see that evidence... yet.
I am perfectly aware of how a jury may determine guilt of innocence in a court of law in the USA.
I am not referring to a court of law but the presentation and determination of scientific evidence which is very different from the legal standard of evidence.
Scientific Evidence:
"In scientific research evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory or other controlled conditions. Scientific evidence usually goes towards supporting or rejecting a hypothesis.
One must always remember that the burden of proof is on the person making a contentious claim. Within science, this translates to the burden resting on presenters of a paper, in which the presenters argue for their specific findings. This paper is placed before a panel of judges where the presenter must defend the thesis against all challenges.
When evidence is contradictory to predicted expectations, the evidence and the ways of making it are often closely scrutinized (see experimenter's regress) and only at the end of this process is the hypothesis rejected: this can be referred to as 'refutation of the hypothesis'. The rules for evidence used by science are collected systematically in an attempt to avoid the bias inherent to anecdotal evidence."
Law:
"The law of evidence encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence can be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision and, sometimes, the weight that may be given to that evidence. The law of evidence is also concerned with the quantum (amount), quality, and type of proof needed to prevail in litigation.
The quantum of evidence is the amount of evidence needed; the quality of proof is how reliable such evidence should be considered. This includes such concepts as hearsay, authentication, admissibility, reasonable doubt, and clear and convincing evidence.
There are several types of evidence, depending on the form or source. Evidence governs the use of testimony (e.g., oral or written statements, such as an affidavit), exhibits (e.g., physical objects), documentary material, or demonstrative evidence, which are admissible (i.e., allowed to be considered by the trier of fact, such as jury) in a judicial or administrative proceeding (e.g., a court of law).
When a dispute, whether relating to a civil or criminal matter, reaches the court there will always be a number of issues which one party will have to prove in order to persuade the court to find in his or her favour. The law must ensure certain guidelines are set out in order to ensure that evidence presented to the court can be regarded as trustworthy."
If you are satisfied with dog and pony shows and .. if it does not fit you must acquit approach to this matter... go for it. You can collect all sorts of people who don't even NEED to study the visual record and derive data from it and apply the laws of mechanics, physics and so forth and just opine from the standing as a theologist or a biologist or whatever. That won't work for me.
To me this is not about swaying minds and convincing people to believe something but the understanding of a complex technical event... and let's set aside the politics when we try to understand it. Science should be a no politics zone in my book.
If the conclusion is akin to *an inside job* and CD you better have some well authenticated and clear and convincing evidence to made such a claim. I don't see that evidence... yet.