3 ms·

>You can disagree with some of the premises of that argument, but it's a valid one (philosophically speaking). Philosophically speaking, If I reject some of th

>You can disagree with some of the premises of that argument, but it's a valid one (philosophically speaking). Philosophically speaking, If I reject some of the premises, this would be a classic ex falso quodlibet, so - unless I subscribe to the use of paraconsistent logic - no, it would actually not be valid. I fully agree that everything should be done to make reporting crimes and presenting evidence as easy as possible and to root out problems preventing this. But: Loosening the standards of presumption of innocence, one of the cornerstone achievements of human rights, can never be part of this. Especially in the age of social media. Everything else is a slippery slope (and one that has been written about in every concievable context on thousands of pages over the centuries). It's easy to say "it will help put away many more guilty people" if you simply redefine what it means to be guilty to be slightly more likely than a coin toss (or what do you mean by "pass a 50/50 guilt test"?).

adjkant 9y ago
You aren't working with a philosophical definition of valid then. http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ An argument can still be valid with false premises. The point of using this definition is to say that if person A disagrees with the premises and person B agrees with them, that is the source of your difference, not a lack of logic like the parent comment implied. My redefinition is not a simplification or hand waving - it is exactly the standard we use in civil cases in the US justice system. Looking up the term, it's "preponderance of the evidence" - it boils down basically to the 50/50 above. It is not at all synonymous with a coin toss. > Preponderance of the evidence, also known as balance of probabilities, is the standard required in most civil cases and in family court determinations solely involving money, such as child support under the Child Support Standards Act. It is also the burden of proof of which the defendant must prove affirmative defenses or mitigating circumstances in civil or criminal court. In civil court, aggravating circumstances also only have to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt (as they do in criminal court). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law) I'm not working with the assumption that the US criminal system ever had the 100% correct definition in the first place. It is not the only legal standard in existence and questioning it should not be seen as "simply redefining" but examining further. I agree with the caution, but the whole post is directly addressing the idea that there isn't logic in what's happening with the general trend.
- dahauns 9y ago
  My mistake - of course, ex falso statements are still logically valid. They are just unsound and don't allow sensible further reasoning, i.e.: great that you agree with your premises, but these are the problem! To the matter at hand: How on earth is it not handwaving/simplification when you are arguing with civil law standards for criminal cases?! Do you really not see the fundamental issue here? There's nothing to "examine further" - this has been examined to death and beyond! And yes, I'm aware that the US criminal system is not the only system in question. But I dare you to show me one (from a democratic system, at least) that has a significantly lesser definition. (And please, don't argue with well known exceptions/reversals, those are all positioned after the general burden of proof has been met.)

adjkant 9y ago

You aren't working with a philosophical definition of valid then. http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ An argument can still be valid with false premises. The point of using this definition is to say that if person A disagrees with the premises and person B agrees with them, that is the source of your difference, not a lack of logic like the parent comment implied. My redefinition is not a simplification or hand waving - it is exactly the standard we use in civil cases in the US justice system. Looking up the term, it's "preponderance of the evidence" - it boils down basically to the 50/50 above. It is not at all synonymous with a coin toss. > Preponderance of the evidence, also known as balance of probabilities, is the standard required in most civil cases and in family court determinations solely involving money, such as child support under the Child Support Standards Act. It is also the burden of proof of which the defendant must prove affirmative defenses or mitigating circumstances in civil or criminal court. In civil court, aggravating circumstances also only have to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt (as they do in criminal court). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law) I'm not working with the assumption that the US criminal system ever had the 100% correct definition in the first place. It is not the only legal standard in existence and questioning it should not be seen as "simply redefining" but examining further. I agree with the caution, but the whole post is directly addressing the idea that there isn't logic in what's happening with the general trend.

dahauns 9y ago
My mistake - of course, ex falso statements are still logically valid. They are just unsound and don't allow sensible further reasoning, i.e.: great that you agree with your premises, but these are the problem! To the matter at hand: How on earth is it not handwaving/simplification when you are arguing with civil law standards for criminal cases?! Do you really not see the fundamental issue here? There's nothing to "examine further" - this has been examined to death and beyond! And yes, I'm aware that the US criminal system is not the only system in question. But I dare you to show me one (from a democratic system, at least) that has a significantly lesser definition. (And please, don't argue with well known exceptions/reversals, those are all positioned after the general burden of proof has been met.)