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