>Sometimes the evidence isn't enough (e.g. The O.J. Case).
>Presuppositions play a critical, sometimes determinative role.
Good point, Dennis.
While Jim emphasizes the role of the attorney in presenting evidence to
make his case, in a courtroom the evidence is weighed and the case is
decided by a jury.
I have considerable confidence in Juries, but they can be swayed by
presuppositions, emotions, etc.
But there is another difference that is crucial. Ideally a Jury listens to
arguments, deliberates for a finite length of time and makes a decision.
If the decision is not overturned on appeal, it's decided for all time. In
scientific investigation, additional evidence is considered when and if it
arises. Both processes are intended to get at the truth, but in law
protecting rights is a paramount concern, while in scientific
investigation, improving our grasp of the mechanisms of nature is
paramount, no matter how long it takes and how many hypotheses have to be
ashcanned.
Phil Johnson is right to hammer away at faulty philosphical presuppositions
of many scientists, and I'm glad that people like Michael Ruse listen to
him. But trying to treat scientific investigation as though it were a
legal investigation seems wrongheaded to me.
Bill Hamilton | Chassis & Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)