4 ms·
That would be a counter-counterexample, wouldn't it?
by cbozeman 2y ago
That would be a counter-counterexample, wouldn't it?
- jonas21 2y agoNah, it supports the counter-example, so it's a counter-example example.
- singpolyma3 2y agoI'd say it refutes the counter-example. The court doesn't care about DKIM, they care about witness testimony. DKIM might have convinced the witness sometimes though.
- speerer 2y agoCourts typically do not care as much about what an expert witness thinks, as rather why they think it - and whether their reasons hold up enough that the conclusions they support should be accepted.
- inopinatus 2y agoThat is not quite correct. A court is undoubtedly interested in what an expert witness has to say. It is the lawyers appearing before the court that may attempt to play the person not the ball, by variously undermining or bolstering their standing as an expert at all.
- inopinatus 2y agoThe stacking of either term is unnecessary, because all counter-examples are also examples, thus: * an example supporting the counter-example is simply another counter-example, and * an example contradicting the counter-example is, by definition, also another counter-example. Corollary: all examples that can be opposed or contradicted by counter-examples are themselves also counter-examples.