Aug. 30th, 2006

xiphias: (Default)
I can think of at least four different standards of proof:

1) Mathematical Proof: if you have proven something mathematically, it's true. At least, it's true under the framework of the starting conditions you are working from and the definition of the operators you are working with. But, within the defined framework, it is true, full stop. You gat get all sorts of interesting effects by changing the framework ("Given a line and a point not on the line, only one line can be drawn through the point parallel to the line." What happens if we assume that arbitrarily many lines can be drawn through the point parallel to the line? Hey! We've discovered Reimannian manifolds!), but, within the framework, that which is proven is true.

2) Scientific Proof: this is not as rigid as mathematical proof, because it is always open to reexamination and reinterpretation, but it's damned close. If you have an idea that you can make predictions with, and the predictions come true, then either your idea is true, or something really close to your idea is true, or something genuinely interesting is happening. By the time that a scientific idea gets enough evidence behind it to be called a theory, you can pretty much take it to the bank. Oh, you can certainly make new discoveries, and changes, and find more details and refinements, but, by the time it's called a "theory", it's within spitting distance of reality.

3) American Criminal Standard of Proof: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. This is a weird one. Because it contains at least one critical undefined -- and, frankly, undefinable -- term: "reasonable." Any definition of "reasonable doubt" that is, um, reasonable, gets uselessly circular immediately.

Still, we can make some assumptions about it. We discount alternative explanations that are vanishingly unlikely, such as "I didn't rob the bank, it was my evil twin," unless other evidence is presented which makes that explanation less unlikely -- such as if the person can present evidence that they actually HAVE an evil twin.

Something is proven to the American Criminal Standard of Proof if we can NOT construct an alternate explanation of the facts which we believe is at least vaguely plausible.

4) American Civil Standard of Proof: Preponderance of Evidence. In the American system, we've got completely different standards of proof for criminal and civil matters. For civil matters, the standard of proof is simply that "the thing we're trying to prove seems more likely than not." A 51% chance of being true is good enough for the civil standard of proof.

What standard of proof should we insist on for various sorts of things?

In general, I think that, if you're going to suggest that a public figure has done something wrong, you don't need to be able to manage a #3 standard of proof, but you ought to be able to manage better than #4.

However -- I think we're at the point where, if your thesis is, "The Bush administration is fucking with us, trying to manipulate the news media, trying to distract folks from their screwups, and give money to their buddies," I think it's fair, at this point, to go with definition #4.
xiphias: (Default)
A YouTube video made by a man who claims to be a defense contractor who worked for Lockheed-Martin, who is attempting to be a whistleblower explaining how they and the Coast Guard have made faulty security systems.

He claims that he's been going through channels, but that he's hitting brick walls, and figures that, if the story gets out, people will fix the problems faster. He says that he hopes that someone who can do something about will see the message.

Seems like it's worth watching. No idea if his claims have merit, but, if we spread it around, hopefully someone who can figure out whether this is true will see it.

November 2018

S M T W T F S
     123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags