Are scientists any closer

[nPeace]

I'm more baffled by @nPeace 's notion that if you don't see something occur, then you "know nothing" about it. Makes me wonder if he's ever served on a jury.

"We the jury have concluded that since there were no eye-witnesses to the crime, we cannot know anything about it."

We the jury do not know what happened, and the evidence does not conclusively point to one conclusion, but we can make it do so, by our unanimous vote. All in favor say "Aye."
Your honor, on the basis of the majority vote, we find the defendant guilty.
Jose Fly the judge says... Guilty as charged?

 

[nPeace]

Why are you trying to obfuscate?

You did that. Not me.
You said origin, and then you changed it to formed, and presented links.
What is it... form, or origin? Are they the same to you?
Either case, you don't know... so.

 

[Jose Fly]

We the jury do not know what happened, and the evidence does not conclusively point to one conclusion, but we can make it do so, by our unanimous vote. All in favor say "Aye."
Your honor, on the basis of the majority vote, we find the defendant guilty.
Jose Fly the judge says... Guilty as charged?

So you agree then that a jury could render a verdict as long as they had sufficient evidence, even though there was no eye witnesses?

 

[nPeace]

So you agree then that a jury could render a verdict as long as they had sufficient evidence, even though there was no eye witnesses?

A wrong verdict. Sure. Happens all the time. In science too. Do you agree?

 

[Jose Fly]

A wrong verdict. Sure. Happens all the time. In science too. Do you agree?

Sure. But they also render accurate verdicts (both scientists and juries) even though no one saw the actual event, right?

 

[nPeace]

Sure. But they also render accurate verdicts (both scientists and juries) even though no one saw the actual event, right?

No buts. Stay on the point.

 

[Jose Fly]

No buts. Stay on the point.

I don't understand your reply. It's a pretty straightforward question.....do you agree that juries can render accurate verdicts, even when there are no eye witnesses to the crime?

 

[nPeace]

Sure. But they also render accurate verdicts (both scientists and juries) even though no one saw the actual event, right?

You are going to tell me what's accurate, and you have no proof of what's accurate, and I'm going to tell you it's not accurate.
So it means the trial was never over, and we are back to square one... repeating the same thing... All in favor, say "Aye".... Over and over, and over again.
Does that make sense to you.? Not to me.

 

[nPeace]

I don't understand your reply. It's a pretty straightforward question.....do you agree that juries can render accurate verdicts, even when there are no eye witnesses to the crime?

How do you know it's accurate? Fair question.

 

[nPeace]

I don't understand your reply. It's a pretty straightforward question.....do you agree that juries can render accurate verdicts, even when there are no eye witnesses to the crime?

Oh, and I don't understand your reasoning. Something's wrong with it... imo. See above, if you don't know what.

 

[Jose Fly]

You are going to tell me what's accurate, and you have no proof of what's accurate, and I'm going to tell you it's not accurate.

Nope, I have no intention of doing that.

So it means the trial was never over, and we are back to square one... repeating the same thing... All in favor, say "Aye".... Over and over, and over again.
Does that make sense to you.? Not to me.

That depends. If we're both on the jury then we do have to come to a resolution, otherwise we end up as a hung jury.

How do you know it's accurate? Fair question.

By examining the basis for the verdict.

Oh, and I don't understand your reasoning. Something's wrong with it... imo. See above, if you don't know what.

You don't understand that juries reach accurate verdicts regarding crimes that had no eye witnesses? That seems strange.

 

[nPeace]

Nope, I have no intention of doing that.


That depends. If we're both on the jury then we do have to come to a resolution, otherwise we end up as a hung jury.


By examining the basis for the verdict.


You don't understand that juries reach accurate verdicts regarding crimes that had no eye witnesses? That seems strange.

We are on mutual ground. Your way of argument is terribly strange to me, It doesn't just seem strange. It is... to me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm more baffled by @nPeace 's notion that if you don't see something occur, then you "know nothing" about it. Makes me wonder if he's ever served on a jury.

"We the jury have concluded that since there were no eye-witnesses to the crime, we cannot know anything about it."

I was thinking the exact same thing.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You did that. Not me.
You said origin, and then you changed it to formed, and presented links.
What is it... form, or origin? Are they the same to you?
Either case, you don't know... so.

No, it's you.

You selectively quoted my posts as well.

Please try again.

 

[Jose Fly]

We are on mutual ground.

So we both agree that juries do indeed render accurate verdicts regarding crimes that had no eye witnesses. That's good!

Your way of argument is terribly strange to me, It doesn't just seem strange. It is... to me.

That's not surprising. You and I are obviously very different people with very different ways of looking at things.

 

[Jose Fly]

I was thinking the exact same thing.

Seems obvious, doesn't it?

 

[nPeace]

So we both agree that juries do indeed render accurate verdicts regarding crimes that had no eye witnesses. That's good!


That's not surprising. You and I are obviously very different people with very different ways of looking at things.

Looks like we are back to old days... talking past each other. ...and you not caring what I say. just interested in what you say. Doing your regular Jose Fly. Almost seems like Deja Vu.

 

[Jose Fly]

Looks like we are back to old days... talking past each other. ...and you not caring what I say. just interested in what you say. Doing your regular Jose Fly. Almost seems like Deja Vu.

So then let's try and avoid our past mistakes. What are you saying that I've been missing?

 

[nPeace]

No, it's you.

You selectively quoted my posts as well.

Please try again.

Try what? Wasting time? No thanks. I met you before. remember. You're all the same... bird of a feather.

 

[nPeace]

So then let's try and avoid our past mistakes. What are you saying that I've been missing?

This is the same mistake you keep making - ignoring and playing ignorant to what I say, and you want me to repeat the same mistake I made in the past, of repeating myself. No thanks.
The same thing goes to you. You can fly with Skeptic.
Pun not intended, but there it is.