Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Will lawyers destroy science? + The Return of "Traditional" Astrology

#1
C C Offline
Will Lawyers Destroy Science
https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/12/29/wil...ence-12340

EXCERPT: Scientists and lawyers do not get along. There's a reason for that. Simply put, scientists and lawyers do not think alike.

I was smacked in the face by this reality when I was called into jury duty in 2011. The case involved a car accident, and the standard in Washington State for the jury to decide in favor of the plaintiff is a "preponderance of evidence," which is a fancy way of saying, "51 percent." Essentially, a coin toss decides if the plaintiff wins a bunch of money.

The judge asked if any of the potential jurors objected to that. I did. "I'm a scientist," I explained, "and I need more evidence than that." So, I was shown the door.*

That experience taught me that scientists and lawyers live in two completely different worlds. Scientists want 95% confidence and margins of error; lawyers want 51% confidence. Scientists want all evidence to be considered; lawyers do everything in their power to dismiss evidence they don't like. Scientists rely on reports written by experts; lawyers often consider them inadmissible hearsay. At their best, scientists pursue truth; at their best, lawyers pursue the truth, so long as it benefits the client.

These are fundamentally irreconcilable worldviews that are forever destined to be in conflict. And the lawyers are winning....

MORE: https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/12/29/wil...ence-12340



The Return of "Traditional" Astrology
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde...astrology/

EXCERPT: I guess this is a theme recently – the return of previous pseudosciences that had been fading into the background. If you type “astrology” into the search window on this blog you get exactly two articles specifically about this topic in the last 10 years. Hopefully this won’t really change and astrology will remain safely on the fringe, an old-school pseudoscience curiosity.

But there are those who are trying to give astrology new respectability. A recent article by Ida Benedetto outlines the strategy, which is two-pronged. First, blame astrology’s poor reputation on modern psychology. Then the fix is an appeal to antiquity – return to the ancient texts. She writes:

“Astrology’s contemporary flavor has a closer relationship with the social science of psychology than the observational science it used to be based upon. If we can set modern judgments aside and learn the language of the ancient astrologers—a language that is now newly available due to the recent revival of classical texts—we may discover lost insights.”

Let’s strangle this infant in the crib, as both prongs of this strategy are nonsense....

MORE: https://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde...astrology/
Reply
#2
Yazata Offline
(Jan 7, 2018 06:31 AM)C C Wrote: Will Lawyers Destroy Science

They don't need to.

Scientists are doing a good enough job of it themselves.

I'm serious. In our contemporary 21'st century age, particularly since 2008, science has become increasingly politicized. Ideological conformity increasingly replaces truth as science's guiding value.

So it's increasingly difficult for laypeople to tell the difference between authoritative science that they probably should believe, and rhetoric pitched to them in the guise of science. So people gradually become more and more skeptical about science as a social institution the more it's abused by its ostensible champions.  

Quote:Scientists and lawyers do not get along.

Isn't that a facile generalization?

Quote:Simply put, scientists and lawyers do not think alike.

There's probably some truth to that. A philosopher who is uniquely positioned to explore that is the philosophical logician Susan Haack. (She teaches in both the U. of Miami Philosophy department and in the U. of Miami Law School.) Here's her recent (2014) book on the subject Evidence Matters - Science, Proof and Truth in the Law:

https://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Matters-...usan+haack

Haack is a philosopher that I've always liked a lot and I've ordered a copy of this book but haven't read it yet.

http://www.law.miami.edu/faculty/susan-haack

Quote:I was smacked in the face by this reality when I was called into jury duty in 2011. The case involved a car accident, and the standard in Washington State for the jury to decide in favor of the plaintiff is a "preponderance of evidence," which is a fancy way of saying, "51 percent." Essentially, a coin toss decides if the plaintiff wins a bunch of money.

I think that's a bit of a caricature.

One problem with courts is that they still use vocabulary derived from 17th century epistemology by way of British common law. Hardly anyone, from judges to jurors, has any really clear idea what phrases like "preponderance of the evidence" or "beyond a reasonable doubt" actually mean (or meant back in the day).

Quote:The judge asked if any of the potential jurors objected to that. I did. "I'm a scientist," I explained, "and I need more evidence than that." So, I was shown the door.*

That experience taught me that scientists and lawyers live in two completely different worlds.

Hyperbole.

I agree that there are differences in how they approach things, but I'm hugely skeptical that scientists are the authoritative epistemological paragons that they present themselves to the public as being.

Quote:Scientists want 95% confidence and margins of error; lawyers want 51% confidence.

How does one quantify confidence in physical law? How does producing a handful of confirming instances confirm the universal applicability of "laws of nature"? How does one quantify faith in mathematics? (Any attempt to do so would be circular.)

"Preponderance of the evidence" isn't an obvious idea - our author's "coin toss" or "51%". The word "preponderance" suggests more than that. (If it was a "coin toss", there wouldn't be a preponderance, would there?) It requires that rather sophisticated judgments be made:

How supportive is the evidence for a claim? How strong are our reasons for trusting the evidence? And so on...

One way of reacting to these questions in the philosophy of law is legal probabilism which tries to reduce jury decisions to formal mathematical calculation. That raises no end of difficulties of its own. (Cases are complex and assigning a single numerical probability to the whole thing is probably going to be impossible.)

Quote:Scientists want all evidence to be considered

They do? I don't think so.

Religious experience and reports of miracles? UFO sightings? Spiritualist seances? Critics of global warming? Those who argue that races (or the sexes) might differ in innate abilities? ...

Quote:lawyers do everything in their power to dismiss evidence they don't like.

Sure, but there are rules of evidence that specify precisely when and how they can do that, and what justifications they can use.

And (this is important) in a courtroom individual lawyers aren't expected to be unbiased. It's the process as a whole that's supposed to be unbiased. That's why it's necessary that both sides have access to counsel and there are opposing attorneys arguing both sides of a contested case.

Science seems to be a less plausible and more ad-hoc process where scientists are supposed to be disinterested in and totally objective about the results of their researches. Despite the fact that their reputations and careers might depend on the success of the hypotheses they favor. Despite the fact that their own personal metaphysical beliefs, identity politics and moral convictions might bias them very strongly towards particular sorts of conclusions.

Quote:Scientists rely on reports written by experts; lawyers often consider them inadmissible hearsay.

Many trials revolve around expert testimony. And in a courtroom the jurors can see which side is calling a particular expert and knows which side their testimony is intended to support. Jurors learn about the witness' expertise in the precise subject that they will be testifying on. With science, "experts" qualifications to speak on particular issues and their underlying agendas and biases are typically less transparent than they are in courts of law. (We often see scientists writing about things outside their narrow area of expertise. This opinion piece is an example.)  

Quote:At their best, scientists pursue truth; at their best, lawyers pursue the truth, so long as it benefits the client.

And scientists pursue the advancement of their own careers and reputations. They pursue the triumph of their own pet theories and their own political and moral beliefs. In some cases they pursue the interests of those who are funding them.

The difference is that in a courtroom there will be lawyers representing both sides of a dispute. The lawyer's job isn't to pronounce 'the truth', it's to make a case. The trial process in its entirety is what produces a decision about where the truth most likely lies. (Not individual attorneys.)

Quote:These are fundamentally irreconcilable worldviews that are forever destined to be in conflict.

I don't think that's necessarily so. I do think that both science and law probably could learn something from each other regarding epistemological procedure in highly-polarized adversarial situations.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Astrology’s biggest 2023 claim debunked: Saturn isn’t moving into Pisces. C C 0 66 Mar 8, 2023 07:42 PM
Last Post: C C
  "Wired" touts astrology as a practice that works + 10 SCAM ‘discoveries’ C C 0 61 Jan 9, 2022 08:23 PM
Last Post: C C
  The Nation (magazine) touts astrology + Ivermectin for Covid-19: dearth of evidence C C 1 84 Aug 26, 2021 07:27 PM
Last Post: Magical Realist
  WHO endorses traditional chinese medicine: Expect deaths to rise C C 2 383 Oct 4, 2018 04:33 AM
Last Post: Syne
  The unwelcome return of race science C C 76 10,275 Mar 12, 2018 05:13 AM
Last Post: Syne
  In California, Coffee Causes Cancer & Lawyers Collect the Fee C C 1 313 Feb 1, 2018 03:24 AM
Last Post: Syne
  The new astrology: Economics + Lie detector is junk science + Phantom flying machines C C 1 851 Apr 5, 2016 11:49 PM
Last Post: elte
  Chinese traditional medicines: do you know what you are buying? C C 0 525 Mar 26, 2016 03:00 AM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)