Mike, Thanks for discussing this with me.
I disagree that there is "...a world of difference..." between these two sets of beliefs because of some qualitative difference between "...beliefs based on superstition and scientific 'beliefs'." You claim that scientific beliefs "...can be empirically tested with a high degree of predictability/certainty, and the other [superstitions] are "...based on nothing but faith (with mostly hit and miss results)." My point is that ALL of members of these two hypothetical juries are accepting the testimony of the expert witness on faith alone. For example, NONE of the modern-day jurors have ever put the scientific claims about DNA to any empirical test. They have FAITH that the expert witness and other scientists have. But this is no difference than the medieval jurors who have FAITH that the expert witness (priest) and other shamans have eclectic, gnostic or spiritual knowledge that empowers them to be able to interpret the entrails of a cat. I just don't see any difference. ...Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mike brown Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 8:21 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] Non-zen Question for Mike Bill!, But there's a world of difference between these 2 examples, and which also highlights the difference between beliefs based on superstition and scientific 'beliefs'. Namely, that one can be empirically tested with a high degree of predictability/certainty, and the other is based on nothing but faith (with mostly hit and miss results). A modern jury understands this and can rely on evidence provided by a DNA expert/science just as they do when they go to a doctor or fly in a plane. Mike ________________________________________ From: "billsm...@hhs1963.org" <billsm...@hhs1963.org> To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, 29 October, 2010 19:18:49 Subject: RE: [Zen] Non-zen Question for Mike Mike, I would choose a western surgeon over a shaman. I trust DNA evidence more than cat entrails. But that's not the point. If I had lived 300 years ago I would have probably chosen a shaman over someone who wanted to open me up with a knife, and I would have believed a priest reading cat entrails before some crazy idea that people are made up of little invisible pieces that are unique. ...Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mike brown Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:27 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] Non-zen Question for Mike Bill!, At a functional level, the majority of people will choose science over superstion because it is *seen* to be both effective and predictable - even tho most people don't know the minutae of its workings. Even tho you have no formal understanding of medical procedure, who would you choose to treat your appendicitis - a shaman or a western surgeon? Mike ________________________________________ From: "billsm...@hhs1963.org" <billsm...@hhs1963.org> To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, 29 October, 2010 17:08:50 Subject: RE: [Zen] Non-zen Question for Mike Mike, The point I was trying to make was that modern-day juries know nothing more about DNA than juries 300 years ago knew about cat entrails. They are both just taking the word of an expert witness. That is why I question why DNA evidence is given such a powerful role in our justice system. I doubt if we today "..tend to accept scientific evidence as being closet [sic] thing to 'truth'..." any more than people 300 years ago accepted without question the words of a priest. ...Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mike brown Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 6:19 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] Non-zen Question for Mike Bill, The scenarios you present are so radically different that it makes me think I'm missing some finer, subtler point - but for the life of me I can't find it! A jury will take into consideration the standards/accepted know.ledge of the time when they make a decision. Ask someone today whether they would rather have anti-biotics or be bled by leeches and I think you'll know which way they'll decide *even tho* they aren't qualified doctors. Also, if the defence could bring in credible opposition to DNA then it would be done (I'd LOVE to see a creationist take the stand to argue against science!). I think I have a rough idea as to what you're driving at (faith) but these days we tend to accept scientific evidence as being tested (and peer-reviewed) to such a highly predictable degree as to be the closet thing to 'truth' as can be objectively judged/trusted. Hope that answers your question somewhat (considering I never got past 'sums' in high school science classes). Mike ________________________________________ From: "billsm...@hhs1963.org" <billsm...@hhs1963.org> To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, 26 October, 2010 19:41:01 Subject: RE: [Zen] Non-zen Question for Mike Mike, What is the difference between these two scenarios? 1. TODAY: A man is accused of rape and murder. He is brought to trial by jury. Semen is found in the body of the woman. DNA is extracted from the accused and from the semen. A DNA expert comes into court and testifies that the samples are a match. The jury believes the DNA expert and convicts the accused. 2. 300 YEARS AGO: A man is accused of rape and murder. He is brought to trial by jury. A priest comes into court and testifies that he cut open a cat and saw in the entrails that the man was guilty. The jury believes the priest and convicts the accused. And before you answer, do you really believe the members of each of these juries knows enough themselves about DNA or cat entrails to make a decision on anything else than just the testimony of the expert witness? ...Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogr! oups.com] On Behalf Of mike brown Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 10:29 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] Non-zen Question for Mike Bill!, Forensic evidence is a specialised area for criminal lawyers so I'll tread carefully on this subject. Firstly, each case turns on its own facts so you'd have to go through each situation (regarding dna) case by case. Secondly, I don't think it's correct to say that any ruling is automatically over-turned because of dna evidence. True, there have been situations where a person has been exonerated, but you're correct to say that this doesn't prove the person is innocent. But this is just as true as when there is insufficent evidence to convict someone, but this doesn't equate to their innocence either. My opinion is that new advances in science are just as applicable in the court room setting as they are anywhere else. If you were wrongly convicted of rape 15 years ago primarily because a rapists mask was found in your possession, I'm thinking you'd be pretty happy when dna testing on the perspiration inside the mask didn't match your own. Even things like the saliva on the back of a stamp can go on to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) who did or didn't send that stalking/threatening/murder letter. In my experience, most criminals are pretty dumb so dna evidence is much more likely to convict the guilty than release them and more likely to protect the innocent rather than convict them. Nothing is 100% failsafe tho. Mike ________________________________________ From: "billsm...@hhs1963.org" <billsm...@hhs1963.org>To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, 25 October, 2010 13:15:08 Subject: [Zen] Non-zen Question for Mike Mike, In a previous post you indicated you had gone to law school. Could you tell me why (or at least give me your opinion as to why) DNA evidence seems to be treated as some kind of super-evidence in our judicial system? I thought there were only two types of evidence: direct and circumstantial. Why would DNA evidence be treated differently as some other kind of direct evidence, such as eye-witness testimony or fingerprints? Also, why are so many prisoners' convictions being overturned because of new DNA evidence? For example, if someone was convicted of murder, and a hair or skin or blood or semen sample taken from the victim shows DNA that is not the same as the one convicted, why does that AUTOMATICALLY overturn the verdict? The convicted could have still killed the victim and the DNA might have come from someone else also involved. It just seems like DNA is used like a trump card in our judicial system instead of just another piece of evidence to consider. Thanks.Bill! __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5560 (20101024) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5562 (20101025) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. h! ttp://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5562 (20101025) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5563 (20101026) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5563 (20101026) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.! com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5573 (20101028) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. ht! tp://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5573 (20101028) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5573 (20101028) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5574 (20101029) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5574 (20101029) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5574 (20101029) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5576 (20101029) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5576 (20101029) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5576 (20101029) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com ------------------------------------ Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
