3 ms·

the adversarial environment of the courtroom provides a range of relevant information to juries, not just one ‘mountain of lies’. it’s just like when you get in

the adversarial environment of the courtroom provides a range of relevant information to juries, not just one ‘mountain of lies’. it’s just like when you get into an argument with someone and a bunch of people walk up and watch, then give their opinions based on the ‘facts’ you each present. a consensus forms on the most reasonable and plausible explanation given the information provided, and that becomes the accepted truth. a jury is a small sample of the population that represents the ‘will of the people’ in this way. any one person can be wrong, but it would be difficult (but not impossible) for all of them to be wrong in the same way (outside of tampering). the one criticism that might be immediately valid is that juries are too small to adequately sample the will of the people, not that they’re too small to uncover truthful consensus.

voakbasda 5y ago
I have been in enough courtrooms to know that both sides will lie if it helps make their case. Truth can end up being irrelevant in legal environments, as this very precedent shows. Collectively this presents a mountain of lies for the jury to sift through. Their opinions about what “facts” to believe should not be given any credence. Forming a scientific consensus should be left to science, not juries.
- salawat 5y ago
  Would it make sense for juries to be "sticky"? In the sense that any subsequent legal action must be judged by the initial finders of fact? Seems like that could forestall this type of tactic. Then again, the fact J&J can calve off legal liabilities like that seems extremely questionable.
  - clairity 5y ago
    as noted in my sibling comment, this isn't a problem in practice. the misguided commenter wants to assert 'science', without regard to the nuance of the situation. the legal system, while imperfect, doesn't generally look kindly to this kind of tenuous manuevering. the question is whether it has enough integrity (and ingenuity) to negate this sort of decrepit evasion.
- clairity 5y ago
  you grossly overstate the amount of lying in courts and don't seem to understand that it doesn't matter that there are some shades of truth that seep into the testimony. it's the counterparty's and the judge's job to keep that to a reasonable minimum (as is the threat of disbarment). the world is infinite shades of grey and we're evolutionarily conditioned to cope with that reality, even those 'ignorant' jurors. moreover, 'scientific consensus' is a sociopolitical, rather than a strictly rational and objective, process. at least try to understand the bone you're fishing to pick.

voakbasda 5y ago

I have been in enough courtrooms to know that both sides will lie if it helps make their case. Truth can end up being irrelevant in legal environments, as this very precedent shows. Collectively this presents a mountain of lies for the jury to sift through. Their opinions about what “facts” to believe should not be given any credence. Forming a scientific consensus should be left to science, not juries.

salawat 5y ago
Would it make sense for juries to be "sticky"? In the sense that any subsequent legal action must be judged by the initial finders of fact? Seems like that could forestall this type of tactic. Then again, the fact J&J can calve off legal liabilities like that seems extremely questionable.
- clairity 5y ago
  as noted in my sibling comment, this isn't a problem in practice. the misguided commenter wants to assert 'science', without regard to the nuance of the situation. the legal system, while imperfect, doesn't generally look kindly to this kind of tenuous manuevering. the question is whether it has enough integrity (and ingenuity) to negate this sort of decrepit evasion.
clairity 5y ago
you grossly overstate the amount of lying in courts and don't seem to understand that it doesn't matter that there are some shades of truth that seep into the testimony. it's the counterparty's and the judge's job to keep that to a reasonable minimum (as is the threat of disbarment). the world is infinite shades of grey and we're evolutionarily conditioned to cope with that reality, even those 'ignorant' jurors. moreover, 'scientific consensus' is a sociopolitical, rather than a strictly rational and objective, process. at least try to understand the bone you're fishing to pick.