Join for free
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Dextrous63
Chatterbox
Dextrous63 is offline
Manchester, UK
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,727
Dextrous63 is male  Dextrous63 has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
01-07-2017, 05:45 PM
1

Proofs

Hi. Have been pondering over this for a few days and can't get my head around bits of it. In putting forward an argument to prove something (such as in a legal case, or religious (please don't divert into our usual quibbles), ethical, moral or even in general), would it be true to say:

1. That if the evidence is correct, you can prove someone's guilt?

2. That if the evidence is correct, then you can prove someone's innocence?

These two seem to be fairly sound deductions.

It's what one can prove if the evidence is false. Can one prove either guilt, innocence or neither

My instinct is that if the evidence is false, nothing can be proved from it. But I'm not sure, hence why I'm asking all you wise people
gasman's Avatar
gasman
Senior Member
gasman is offline
Kent, UK
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,362
gasman is male  gasman has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
01-07-2017, 09:37 PM
2

Re: Proofs

I'll have two pints of whatever you are drinking Dex.
As far as I am aware, a person in this country is innocent until proven guilty.
Is that the line that you are coming from?
MKJ's Avatar
MKJ
Chatterbox
MKJ is offline
UK
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 8,320
MKJ is male  MKJ has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
01-07-2017, 10:44 PM
3

Re: Proofs

Originally Posted by Dextrous63 ->
Hi. Have been pondering over this for a few days and can't get my head around bits of it. In putting forward an argument to prove something (such as in a legal case, or religious (please don't divert into our usual quibbles), ethical, moral or even in general), would it be true to say:

1. That if the evidence is correct, you can prove someone's guilt?

2. That if the evidence is correct, then you can prove someone's innocence?

These two seem to be fairly sound deductions.

It's what one can prove if the evidence is false. Can one prove either guilt, innocence or neither

My instinct is that if the evidence is false, nothing can be proved from it. But I'm not sure, hence why I'm asking all you wise people
A good lawyer can make anyone believe anything. So, apparently nothing is true these days .
AnnieS's Avatar
AnnieS
Chatterbox
AnnieS is offline
United Kingdom
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 18,420
AnnieS is female  AnnieS has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
02-07-2017, 12:01 AM
4

Re: Proofs

If the evidence is false then it proves someone's innocence surely? You can't prove guilt from fake evidence. Unless you prove it's planted by the guilty party. Where's columbo when he is most needed....
swimfeeders
Chatterbox
swimfeeders is offline
Shropshire
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 24,056
swimfeeders is male  swimfeeders has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
02-07-2017, 06:42 AM
5

Re: Proofs

Hi

I blame the TV, programmes like CSI, they are nothing like real life at all.

DNA?

Yep, well that is only as good as the person collecting the evidence and the lab processing it.

It is not infallible, it is open to incompetence and just genuine mistakes.

It is also open to serious abuse if you know what you are doing.
summer's Avatar
summer
Chatterbox
summer is offline
yorkshire
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,018
summer is female  summer has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
02-07-2017, 08:15 AM
6

Re: Proofs

Providing false evidence knowingly could point to a persons guilt or prove another persons innocence.

Just thinking about this now and feeling a bit muddled
Dextrous63
Chatterbox
Dextrous63 is offline
Manchester, UK
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,727
Dextrous63 is male  Dextrous63 has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
02-07-2017, 09:52 AM
7

Re: Proofs

It is confusing, which is why I asked.

Moving aside from the legal aspect and onto a purely logical example.

If the evidence stated 2+2=5, then could you thus deduce/prove that 3+3=10 (a falsehood) or indeed 7+7= 14 (a truth)

I think I'm delving into one interpretation of ex nihilo, nihil fit (nothing comes from nothing).
Barry's Avatar
Barry
Chatterbox
Barry is offline
North Notts
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,676
Barry is male  Barry has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
02-07-2017, 09:56 AM
8

Re: Proofs

Originally Posted by Dextrous63 ->
It is confusing, which is why I asked.

Moving aside from the legal aspect and onto a purely logical example.

If the evidence stated 2+2=5, then could you thus deduce/prove that 3+3=10 (a falsehood) or indeed 7+7= 14 (a truth)

I think I'm delving into one interpretation of ex nihilo, nihil fit (nothing comes from nothing).
Too deep for me...
kedro
New Member!
kedro is offline
USA
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 5
kedro is male 
 
02-07-2017, 10:41 AM
9

Re: Proofs

First, show me the evidence that 2 + 2 = 5.
Dextrous63
Chatterbox
Dextrous63 is offline
Manchester, UK
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,727
Dextrous63 is male  Dextrous63 has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
02-07-2017, 11:08 AM
10

Re: Proofs

Originally Posted by kedro ->
First, show me the evidence that 2 + 2 = 5.
Ok. Here it is. 2+2=5

I don't have to prove it as it's my evidence. What can you prove from this evidence (other than the obvious that I'm a stoopid halfwit for claiming it to be valid)?
 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >

Thread Tools


© Copyright 2009, Over50sForum   Contact Us | Over 50s Forum! | Archive | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Top

Powered by vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.