Subject:
|
Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 2 Oct 2002 20:35:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
848 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> Having a debate where one side says, "This, this, this, this and this proves
> my point" (of course, all 'this''s are backed up by link and/or citations)
> and someone comes along and says, 'well, this one point of yours is
> erronous, therefore the entire arguement is erronous' is, imho, wrong. Is
> like the OJ Trial--we have the blood, we have the DNA, we have the motive,
> we have the whole bunch of everything, all pointing to OJ, and yet--the
> gloves don't fit!!--well, that *must* mean the rest of the case is false, so
> that's that!
I'm not sure I agree here. A bit of logic might help.
If I assert: (-> == implies )
A -> B and B -> C and C -> D are all true , and thus A -> D is true
and provide facts or evidence
FAB in support of A -> B
FBC in support of B -> C
FCD in support of C -> D
then, if you can show ANY ONE of FAB, FBC or FCD to be false, you cast a
great deal of doubt on A -> D, as a link is broken in the inference chain.
If on the other hand, I only assert E -> F
and provide facts or evidence
FEF1 in support of E -> F
FEF2 in support of E -> F
FEF3 in support of E -> F
(each of which is sufficient on its own)
knocking away any one of FEF1, FEF2, or FEF3 does not disprove E -> F in and
of itself.
The prosecution argument was that there was a chain of evidence supporting a
chain of inferences. It was not (seriously) disputed by the defense that the
DNA evidence strongly indicated that the blood on the gloves was that of who
the prosecution said it was... The prosecution had argued that OJ had to
have worn the gloves when committing the murder, that it was vital that the
gloves were worn by him and not someone else or it wasn't OJ that did it.
Thus, the gloves being worn by OJ was one inference in a chain, not one fact
of many supporting a single inference. Breaking that one inference broke the
whole chain. That is what Johnnie Cochrane did by showing that the gloves
did not fit. Or at least that's what I interpreted him to do.
Apologies to critical thinkers, who already know this... but it is extremely
valid to break one point in a chain and then cast aspersions on the whole
chain. If you don't know this, perhaps you watch too much tv or get too much
reasoning spoon fed to you by it, at any rate. TV is notoriously poor at
this sort of exposition.
In my view the prosecution botched handling the case. I believe based on gut
feel (but not the evidence as presented, note the distinction) that OJ did
it. But they didn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore the
jury returned the correct verdict.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
| (...) Very nicely put, Larry... However, my point was outlined with the second reasoning you made--that given a list of claims, (FEF1 (blood), FEF2 (DNA), FEF3 (motive), FEF4 (whatever)... FEFn) and one of those claims was refuted, it does not mean (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
| (...) Yeah, they botched the case alright... Frankly, I don't know who did this double homicide -- nor does anyone else as aptly pointed out by Larry. O.J. looks good for it, but I can't see why a person of his apparent means would do something like (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
| (...) Well said Richard. What I would endeavour to change in the above, though, is, well, let me put it this way-- Having a debate where one side says, "This, this, this, this and this proves my point" (of course, all 'this''s are backed up by link (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
