mikwut wrote:Darth J,
Seeking a little clarification. Where do the Federal and State rules of evidence find themselves as appropriate for your entire worldview?
Nowhere.
I am meaning when you incorporate metaphysical possibilities, emotions, human behavior and traits into your view of reality as whole, what place do the rules of evidence have? Even analogously? A high, medium or low? Both idealistically and practically?
1. I suppose that by analogy, court rules of evidence may suggest some general heuristics about the reliability and credibility of evidence in various types of claims.
ETA: However, the same could be said for guidelines that numerous other vocations use for evaluating evidence.
2. When you get into metaphysics, in my opinion, discussing evidence is over. Whether anything metaphysical is "real" is a matter of faith and subjective experience. Because of my subjective experiences that I feel are spiritual in nature, I believe in God. (However, believing in God does not mean one is a theist. As MrStakhanovite sometimes explains, theism is belief in certain philosophical propositions about God.) My subjective spiritual experiences, however, are not what I would call "evidence," because it isn't empirical. I can't show you my subjective experiences. It is possible to measure physiological responses to what are claimed to be metaphysical experiences, but that to me does not resolve the issue. A hard materialist is going to say that the physiological response
is the experience. A believer in some kind of metaphysics of some kind is probably going to say that we are just measuring the body's reaction to the experience. I have no idea how either proposition can really be determined, nor how it can be determined that only empirically-measurable events are "real."
One problem with getting off into metaphysics is that it is not a substitute for dealing with claims of objective fact. For example, whether an angel came and talked to Joseph Smith is a metaphysical claim. On the other hand, whether there was a thousand-year civilization of Hebrews in pre-Columbian America is a question of fact. Believing Latter-day Saints (and other believers in various faith systems) give lip service to the idea that metaphysical claims and factual claims should be congruent, but discussion bears out that metaphysics
a priori Trump's fact for them. My position is that if the metaphysical beliefs don't fit with objective reality, then it's time to re-evaluate how you interpreted your metaphysical experiences. Latter-day Saints who are true believers almost always do the opposite; thus, the expression, "put it on the shelf."
Claims about UFO lore are almost always factual claims, but there is a New Age movement out there saying that UFO's are really beings from some alternate dimension that are basically what most people think of as gods or angels (or demons).
I am not a greybeard trial attorney by any stretch but in 11 years of trying cases your use of the terms "real courts" is rather mystifying.
Yes, it is. It has nothing to do with this topic, or any other topic on this board unless you are specifically talking about the legal system (like the legal status of same-sex marriage). But when you realize that I was responding to Ray A, who keeps bringing up my supposed lawyer games as a rhetorical diversion, it become less mystifying.
It comes across as lining up with naïve uber-skeptics that use the analogy in philosophical and existence of god debates as a rhetorical device because of its seeming integrity among laypeople.
It sure does. That's why I haven't brought it up at all. It has only arisen in this thread because Ray A keeps saying without proof that I am engaging in "phony lawyer games" when I say something that he doesn't like. I am not convinced that Ray A has any particular familiarity with "lawyer games" in the United States, and he has provided no reason to believe either that he does or that I am doing what he claims I am. Just like uber-skeptics trying to dazzle laypeople with that analogy, laypeople putting the label of "lawyer games" on someone who has legal experience is just a way for them to try poisoning the well. (Droopy does this all the time, too, when he wades into a thread where anyone fails to acknowledge that the U.S. Constitution was created for the express purpose of institutionalizing his personal value judgments.)
I have mentioned "hearsay" a few times, but it's not like the concept of hearsay is limited to law or to formal rules of evidence.
I have found all manner of ridiculous and nonsensical evidence introduced at trial (some of which I introduced with no business for it) and some of which was introduced with my many objections utilizing the idealized rules of evidence. Expert testimony can become simply a game. I am yet to not be able to hire an expert for exactly what I need, nor have I seen my opposing colleagues find much difficulty to oppose my expert.
Yep. "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert." That is very true in the outside world, too. A similar rule of thumb, I think, is that "for every anecdote, there is an equal and opposite anecdote."
And along those same lines is the perversion of "both sides of the issue," such as when a news program talking about vaccinations finds it necessary to show both a real medical doctor who knows what he or she is talking about, and then a histrionic rant from a former Playboy model (Jenny McCarthy).
I don't think I have read exactly what kind of law you practice, but your posts indicate to me someone who wouldn't idealize the "real courts" of our country as truth and fact finders. They have a role for sure, but my experience has hardly made me optimistic that truth is a conduit stemming from our trial courts on a consistent and trustworthy basis.
Nor our laboratories, nor our universities, nor our mass media, nor our authority figures, nor our governments.
So to the extent that I was responding to Ray A's uninformed quip about "real courts," I think that the analogy to a trier of fact trying to determine what is most likely to be true is valid. That's about as far as the comparison to court goes, though.
Your posts indicate a skeptical maturity that I respect but your use of the rules of evidence comes across like a young prosecutor not experienced enough to know its a racket.
Okay. If you can specify where I am trying to use the rules of evidence or courtroom procedure as a debate tactic, you most certainly are welcome to show me.
Your last statement is really indicative of how effective poisoning the well can be. I was responding to Ray A's caricature when I referred to "real court."
But I never actually did what he claims I am doing ("phony lawyer games"). Name-calling and well-poisoning is what you do when you do not have the wherewithal to respond to critical thinking coming in contact with your cherished beliefs. That's why I have been remarking on the similarity between Mormon apologetics and UFO apologetics. Ray A has conscripted me into the diehard skeptic brigade---the ufologist equivalent of "anti-Mormon"---based on nothing more than my statements that I do not find the evidence compelling or persuasive that space aliens have been visiting the Earth. I really don't have any particular interest in UFO's. My only real interest in this thread is looking at the mindset of apologist behavior that seems to have some common presenting behaviors, regardless of the belief system being defended.
