1
   

facts in the courtroom v. facts in the laboratory

 
 
Deckard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2010 01:47 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;126646 wrote:
Depends how, and depends when, and depends by whom. Scientists should interpret scientific facts. But not ideologists masquerading as scientists.


And so judges should interpret the law. But not ideologists masquerading as judges.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2010 08:06 am
@Deckard,
Deckard;126660 wrote:
And so judges should interpret the law. But not ideologists masquerading as judges.


Oh, I agree. But that is a more difficult matter. Was Souter an ideologist because he believed in a "liberal" interpretation of the law, as opposed to (say) Scalia, who is a "strict" man? There is a fuzzy area. But, of course, in principle, I agree.
Deckard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 02:15 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;126721 wrote:
Oh, I agree. But that is a more difficult matter. Was Souter an ideologist because he believed in a "liberal" interpretation of the law, as opposed to (say) Scalia, who is a "strict" man? There is a fuzzy area. But, of course, in principle, I agree.


I think the difference between Souter and Scalia (though I don't know enough about either to say this with any authority) is ideological at the root but this is a broad and fuzzy conception of the term 'ideology'. Is it more a difference of methodology? Is methodology rooted in ideology or vice-versa?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 06:18 am
@Deckard,
Deckard;126978 wrote:
I think the difference between Souter and Scalia (though I don't know enough about either to say this with any authority) is ideological at the root but this is a broad and fuzzy conception of the term 'ideology'. Is it more a difference of methodology? Is methodology rooted in ideology or vice-versa?


In this case it seems to me that the methodology is rooted in the ideology. But as for your general question I don't know as there is any general answer.
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Mar, 2010 03:16 am
@Deckard,
Deckard;125866 wrote:
How do facts as understood by the scientific profession and laboratory context compare and contrast with facts as understood by the legal profession and courtroom context? There are many similarities but there must also be some major differences.
Thing is, many crime labs has produced wrong evidence, reading the results wrong and made pure assumptions, just to get a higher rating and earn more money ..resulting in innocent being put to death and long prison terms.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/20/2019 at 05:19:43