en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke's_three_laws

I’m never posting again due to the fact that I am evidently extremely boring.

Bloody hell: I wish. The problem would lie (say, on an indictment for obtaining money by deception) in establishing dishonesty because the stupid buggers are so utterly deluded that they honestly think homeopathy works. Or at least it would be difficult to prove they thought otherwise to the required standard. Otherwise, I’d be the first person ringing the Met and saying “I’d like to report a crime…’ Sometimes ignorance can be a defence.

Treating Courts as experimental science is probably not a great idea. I can see the proceedings now… “our best theory is that Mr Jones killed the victim with this here knife so we’re going to let him loose with an identical one and see if he confirms our suspicions by following the same pattern.”

Chemists do preside over trials, I suspect, as Magistrates. Interestingly, in the Roskill Report way back in 1987ish, it was suggested that expert assessors join judges on complex fraud trials (e.g. accountants). The suggestion was never taken up, sadly. Still, Judges and juries are generally there to decide stuff based on the evidence presented. They don’t just wake up one morning and decide to rule arbitrarily on the efficacy of the MMR vaccine. Indeed, they can’t and if they do they get appealed and overturned.

“watching scientists trespass on the laws of evidence and judicial system”

Scientific theory, and note the word theory, is based on observation of evidence and construction of a theory to fit that evidence, or sometimes, construction of a theory based upon other theories and then a search for evidence of the “truth” of the new theory.

Once that has been done the results are offered up for others to try and 1.replicate the results and 2. pick great gapping holes in the theory. Provided that 1 is done and 2 is not then it is accepted as a valid theory and added to the body of knowledge….. but and this is important… it is still normally referred to as a theory. The reason for this is that at some point somebody may come up with evidence to disprove it and or replace it with a variation or improvement on the theory.

There are very few things that a good scientist will point too and say that is a solid fact because we all know that we don’t know everything.

As for the Court having the right or not to decide if an association exists or not i would way that provided the court consists of scientists with a knowledge of the field the association is within then yes they do. If how ever it is comprised of lawyers and judges with no grounding in the matter then no they don’t.

To ask a judge to make a ruling on a scientific matter they have no knowledge of is like asking a chemist to preside over a murder trial!

If the courts are supposed to pass judgement on medical / scientific matters and rule on effectiveness and association then please can we press charges against the homeopaths please??? pretty please with a cherry on top???

On the subject of homeopaths. The was an article in the irish independant the other day concerning one who convinced a man with a cancerous (malignant) tumor in his neck to give up all other treatments and rely on her’s.

Needless to say the guy then proceeded to snuff it.

A court hearing was held to review the case and the Homeopath in question did not show up at the court hearing. So they fined her… how much i hear you cry? a whole 6 euro’s! so about £4

how it goes from here remains to be seens…..

Talk about the chilling effect of the law on free speech.

I think you’re confusing Courts generically with Criminal Courts specifically. Even then, in any criminal case, a finding of certainty (“reasonable doubt” now being diapproved-of as a formultaion) involves many precedent judgments having to be made (some of which are ‘on the balance of probabilities’).

Those precedent judgements on evidence presented, whether factual (witness X saw defendant Y commit act Z) or scientific (vaccine X is effective at preventing condition Y) have to be made for the Court to come to a determination. It cannot be right to say, “[Courts] have no right to decide whether or not associations exist or not” becuase no subject can be without the Courts’s purview – if it is material to the case, it needs to be decided. What is important to remember is that merely because a Judge is satisfied of something to a certain standard of proof does not make it so. It is that the evidence before him or her satisfies whatever evidential test is required.

The Courts agree that “judgements that are based on lack of research are no judgements at all”, which is why they call expert scientific witnesses. If such witnesses state “we don’t know yet because we need to do more research” then the Court must either say that it is not possible to decide that issue on the evidence or, if the evidence is that it is more probable that X is the case than Y but we need to do more research to “know” then the Court will look to see if this meets the required standard of proof, whether ‘certainty’ (probably not) or merely ‘on the balance of probabilities’ (probably does).

Sorry to go on – given that a constant complaint on the site is of humanities graduates trespassing in science, I thought I should defend the corner of the lawyer watching scientists trespass on the laws of evidence and judicial system…

if anyone was wondering how exactly £30 was jusifiable for a kettle lead, check out what happened when I asked about a £500 crocodile clip.

Bear in mind though, it is capable of quantum particle streams.

(just click on my name if the link is dead)

“Even if they didn’t have that track record, they’d all still have a strong motivation to wipe out ordinary crops in favour of their genetic cash cow.”

Um…you do know that the seed from many conventionally bred crops is essentially useless for re-sowing, right?

Courts of law have the right to decide whether reasonable doubt exists or not – they have no right to decide whether or not associations exist or not, that is the job of the scientist through research. Courts of law do have to make judgements, I accept that, but those judgements that are based on lack of research are no judgements at all. In many modern cases involving science – the answer is often ‘we don’t know yet because we need to do more research’ in these cases who is a judge to decide whether a scietific association exists or not?

I still don’t like anyone knowing what I’m up to; apart from me.