Eff's Rambles (Archive)


On the nature of evidence.

This is nothing too indepth. It is merely inspired by a minor debate I had with two people over President Bush and his family's two dogs. It seems they, or one of them, would not come to him when called. I have not seen the video where this happens. The contention of the two people is that it is evidence that Bush abuses the dogs and, or, they fear him because he is evil, more or less. Obviously, I disagreed. I doubt the strength of such supposed evidence.

Perhaps Bush is evil, but he may be good, I cannot be certain of either, at least not without more consideration.

I shall ask no one to agree with me on the quality of that evidence, but I do wonder something about the use of weak evidence.

Wether they are used in the legal courts or those of public opinion, how ethically acceptable is it to use ambiguous and, or, weak evidence, even in conjunction with other, perhaps in some cases stronger or strong in their own right evidence?

Perhaps subjective interpretation is the final judge on this matter.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Online dictionary at www.Answers.com

Concise information in one click