kristalris

So the jury is still out on the question whether or not NASA et al have got it wrong or they have stumbled on something fundamental. I would like to note that the principle of having a material object such as a spaceship seemingly act as a perpetual mobile is consistent with the idea that photons have mass and accelerate holding c in the Higgs field that is formed of moving mass as well in a graviton field that does the same. Gravitons spinning Higgs particles into Gluons forming strings, two of which form a photon. Taking the entire cosmos then as a closed system the energy level will be and remain constant. No conflict then with the law of conservation of momentum. You simple as yet don't observe part of what is happening. For then the fundamental driving force of nature is not energy, but chaos and order in a never ending cycle. The effect is then caused by trading the constant movement in a way that accelerates your spaceship that consists of strings. Fundamentally all Newton then. Simple.

Not necessarily because you assume that photons fly absolutely straight and are thus an evident dissonant in observed nature. If they curve the universe would be dark. So given this alternate explanation you may not take it into evidence for a non Euclidean universe. And you assume only either a Euclidean or a non-Euclidean. Why not both one in the other? Say a Non-euclidean Higgs field universe in a Euclidean graviton fielded universe? And you assume that photons don't interact with say the Higgs field even though they curve and red-shift holding c in the curve.

I see rereading the post that I made a mistake in describing the picture accurately enough. The photo would have been helpful. It is of course always the two safe and unsafe sides of the say Rook left and right of the king and queen that constitute the LARGE-LARGE ; LARGE-small; small-LARGE; small-small possible combinations. Another thing worth mentioning is that once the King Queen combination is set, it I guess limits the bandwidth of possible befitting other combinations. This in the sense that if you start changing the further settings later in life say at the age of 12 you run the great risk that the settings are out of sync. A bit like putting petrol in a diesel engine. It is possible but you need to adjust and fine-tune a lot more and it won't run as good as simply accepting that a diesel is a diesel and requires diesel and not petrol. If you for instance pester someone the instrument between the ears gets some damage. A bit of damage can be handled and should be deemed normal. Pestering to long can cause serious and even permanent damage. Saying to our young Einsteins that they are deficient and require Ritalin is in effect damaging this highly sensitive instrument between the ears. It is like putting petrol in a diesel or vice versa. And it is not just this Einstein kid that has a problem. We all do for we need these Einsteins undamaged to help us survive later on and reach our stated goals in life as human society. You can in one school system in effect correctly educate all basic five personality types per speed of brain group and even all speed of brain groups together now we have computers. The only thing you have to do is split in correct age / development groups Easy yet taboo and thus extremely difficult. Forget classrooms with one teacher. Team the teachers up correctly. For instance one of the problems with one teacher is that if he isn't a Bokito, or can't play a good Bokito, he / she can't keep the order for when a kid Bokito wants to challenge and become the leader he/ she will do so by singe-ling the odd one out, usually the Einstein and pester him. Yet if he/ she even senses Bokito is present they won't even try. Einstein is then safe. What we try and do is have teachers try and keep the order who simply can't perform that task even when having followed all sorts of training-programs. Consequence Einstein kid cum suis gets pestered. I wasn't pestered at school yet saw this happen to a later good friend of mine and even then wondered at what it was that was happening. In one class no problem next class he got pestered. And nearly every time a hit. And the class where he got pestered the teacher tried in vain all sorts of things to keep the order and the other teacher did nothing of the sort most of the times and no problem. Now i understand why. The system between the ears is to a degree sociably self learning. if you put all types of kids together in a same infant class the will automatically acquire the social skills from each other to a high degree. All sorts of other requirements must of course be met in order to not damage the instruments between the ears. These requirements can differ. In later life you might say DSM6 style we are all apes and we all require a degree of banana's. A banana being what we cherish in life: sex, money, authority, esteem, helping others (whether they want it or not), short term satisfaction and security et cetera. This to differing degrees between personality types yet nearly the same per typegroup. All want the same amount of bananas yet don't mind to trade more time off for less money et cetera. The technicalities and logistics to do that are seemingly simple to do yet the model also immediately shows that it is at the same time exceedingly difficult if the authoritative leaders don't agree. They hold the key to any majority even in a democracy.

CHESS MODEL OF THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS in lieu of DSMV Please comment, still work in progress on modeling current science in a more simple way:. To my amazement I think I can actually model the Big Five personality traits & DSMV on a chessboard. Alas the photo is to large to upload yet a simple picture will follow when I get round to it. A simple way of depicting current behavioral science annex a critique on that from a philosophical standpoint. The picture will depict: take a normal size chessboard and take the pieces of a pocket-size chessboard . Place both the large and the small on the large board according to the rules of chess. The basis idea it is all Yin and Yang tension in the system. Like the biceps and the triceps of an arm. You get thus either large/small King and large/small Queen: biceps-biceps ; triceps-triceps; triceps-biceps; biceps-triceps per chess board square containing thus then a large and a small identical chesspeice. Place a white marker under either the large or small piece in each respective field on the board. I.e. either the large white KING or the small white king on the black square gets the marker placed under it. The same goes for each field on the board always then containing a piece having a small and a large one of the same type. It is probable (or else nurture very early on) that at first in the choice of king and queen probably at birth has been taken, and this also has thus a slight preference as to the rest of the pieces. In the years up to the age usually of 24 years the personality is formed by interaction with other brains and the environment. Yet here you should see your self in an unsafe king environment as opposed to the safe environment. You can be a large ROOK in the unsafe yet a small rook in a safe environment. So the king side is the unsafe side and the queen side the safe side of your personality. Mind "safe"and unsafe are strange: it is always to be taken on the yet to follow goal of the brain, that is provided by the personality. For instance for a as yet to follow humble authority driven brain it is more unsafe not to walk with your pals towards a machine-gun that cuts you down than to run away. read the history of the pals battalions at the battle of the Somme as a historic example. The pawns show the will power to turn the board and play the black pieces: i.e. the ability to act as someone else. More on this is to follow. The model does not depict the memory yet does depict speed of brain represented by the clock. Also four possibilities 10% slow-slow; 40% slow- fast; 40% fast-slow (= faster); 10% fast-fast. I assume the same sort of division can be made for the size of the memory. 10% quick forget (= also sometimes good!) 40% below par and 40% above par and 10% photographic memory. In effect a normal distribution. It works as follows: large pieces is ego or self trait opposite and small is group or social trait side. (Many small is herd to counter the predator Ego) Yet mind we are all all traits more or less and all unique in view of the many possible settings. EGO right-wing politics 80% male <--> Social left wing politics 80% female Openness BISHOP (independent lateral thought good on goal) <---------------> Narrow-minded bishop (herd mid = bad then) UNSAFE King-side Narrow-minded BISHOP (independent lateral thought bad on goal) <--------------> Open-minded bishop (irony = lie to keep it together) SAFE Queen-side Unfriendly KNIGHT <-----------------> Friendly knight Introvert ROOK <----------------> Extrovert rook Internal will PAWN <-----------------> External will pawn For starters we now have thousands of combinations. Yet but a few major starters: if you are all ego then you are what pre DSMV would (incorrectly BTW) call a psychopath: in this model you are a fearless person. Who thinks himself God because there is no feeling available in order to guess what will happen when coming across a never observed animal say a bear. There is no imagination available that it could possibly be dangerous. God versus bear leaves the poor beast chance-less. When the bear is only a bit peckish and only rips the arm off the poor bugger then he will have only rationally learnt that bears might be dangerous. Had he not tripped in his mind then it would have been alright. So second time round still fearless he gets his other arm ripped off. These people are great aids when trying as cavemen to get a bear out of his jacket in order to get warm clothes when a new ice age comes and the environment changes. Yet not a good idea as we are doing now having them the CEO because they sink the ship for you and shortly after having well lined their narcissistic / egocentric pockets will leave the sinking ship. They are alas also MN executioners. So beware. Shock and awe tactics don’t work for these 1% of the populace. Yet as authority (= CEO) steer the authority minded. If you are born a Large KING you are 80% shore a male. Usually the rest of the settings will thus go to the ego side. However you are at the same-time also preset either small or big queen. If you are a small queen in the nurture that ensues you are also prone to the small social side. This explains why you can have a female brain in a male body to a certain degree, thus being normal. only becoming ab normal when the society doesn't in effect accept that. You thus have four (including the psychopath gorilla five) basic types in DSM6: everyone mad except < 1%: The four communication styles BTW accompany the preferred styles. The right-wing lateral humor chimpanzee the joker and fighter 9% logic / fear on stated goal The left-wing irony humor bonobo the Napoleon leader actor / salesperson flirt-er 10% logic/fear on relation The religious conscientious (= will power PAWN) Bokitio (gorilla) authoritative leader 10% logic/ fear loss of authority The religious conscientious (= low on ego) humble baboon authority minded 70% of the populace. Now you can thus be a chimpanzee in an unsafe situation yet having a well fitting bonobo suit in the safe side. Only under great stress can you see what you yourself are in fact deed down. Yet this can be tested or better said also assessed. The will power makes it possible to play the other side. If you are pawn- pawn you need social pressure to do this. If you are PAWN –PAWN you have a great personal will power and do not need social pressure to do things that you don’t like. Will power is like that the board is on a turning table with either a strong spring small pawn or ( edit) SMALL spring large PAWN. Willpower is like a muscle it gets tired. => You can’t play something you are not for very long. Actors of course are better at that than non actors. Hence most actors have ego = small spring less muscle required to play to be something you are not. Einstein was probably a fast –fast brain and non ironic yet lateral humour albeit he also had the social trait of friendliness. So immediately when you detect ironic humor you know even given a fast-fast brain it is not an Einstein because the other program takes up to much memory space. Like in a computer. And alertness then of the Big Five? Fighter (ego) traits come into play at a higher stress level (the fearless the highest of course) than flirter trait and that comes at a higher stress-optimum than freezers. The more ego the less scared because they simply don’t have the imagination to compute what could go wrong. So to stand guard you best have a freezer. Mind if the stress level rises too quickly you go over the optimum and become panicked. Even further you freeze up completely and can’t even flee in panic let alone withdraw. Churchill was in this model a baboon chimpanzee so a sociable in the end fighter. When these are at wits end and start crying as Churchill did hearing that El Alamein was lost then the end is neigh. So a freezer awaits orders at an optimum or just past that optimum, from the ones who do still have at least an idea of what to do. => better chance for survival of the group. A humble freezer can't make up their mind and an authoritative leader can yet both limit the correctness of the guess to within the current paradigm => confirmation bias (Kuhn dixit). The fighters are the good creative broadband guessers giving even under great stress a probable creative solution, yet only when balanced by a conscientious Alan Brook Bokito type who doesn't understand him and of course a friendly wife. With Churchill you measure lateral humor combined with ironic humor. The chessboard BTW has a strong DNA touch to it, that religious people don’t like. BTW religious belief in authority doesn't necessarily also mean belief in God. Or the same authority. There are thus four forms of culturally independent humour : lateral humour - ironic humour the combibation of the two and humourless on both. See my other post. the forms of humour have nothing to do with culture: out of the paradigm on goal orientated logic is in all cultures perceived as funny. What specifically is out of the box or paradigm is of course culturally dependent. Openness is thus possible on lateral thought =/= per se funny for it is a survival trait) Dolphins and other predators are playful fighters that easily like humans for that very reason. Openness is also possible on being able to communicate and relate to all types of human, that requires the trait to act or lie = ironic. Saying one yet meaning the other. Survival trait lure in the prey come in here to mate and get pounced. Nothing to do with culture. BTW the western Germanic tribes have the norm (with exceptions BTW) of telling the truth contrary to most other cultures tell what is expected and don't cause the other lose of face. And yes you can detect these traits......if you have them of course otherwise not. Checklists (IQ tests, DSM V tests etc.) are of dubious value.

Indeed, quite right. That is why I stated earlier that this target is irrelevant. Relevant to the OP is the fact that you can assess because you can look at the prior odds and do re-tests. The only thing you can conclude is that this target is probably more of an Einstein than the maker of the test.

THE JUST PROOF CHESS MODEL OF THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS In the photo I’ve attached you see a chessboard with small and large pieces. To my amazement I think I can actually model the Big Five personality traits on a chessboard this way. The basis idea it is all Yin and Yang tension in the system. Like the biceps and the triceps of an arm. You get thus either large/small King and large/small Queen: biceps-biceps ; triceps-triceps; triceps-biceps; biceps-triceps per chess piece. The white marker shows which choice nature at first in the choice of king and queen at birth has been taken, and this also has thus a slight preference as to the rest of the pieces. In the years up to the age usually of 24 years the personality is formed by interaction with other brains and the environment. Yet here you should see your self in an unsafe king environment as opposed to the safe environment. You can be a large rook in the unsafe yet a small one in a safe environment. The pawns show the will power to turn the board and play the black pieces: i.e. the ability to act as someone else. The model does not depict the memory yet does depict speed of brain represented by the clock. Also four possibilities 10% slow-slow; 40% slow- fast; 40% fast-slow; 10% fast-fast. I assume the same sort of division can be made for the size of the memory. It works as follows: large pieces is ego or self trait opposite and small is group or social trait side. EGO right-wing politics 80% male <--> Social left wing politics 80% female Openness BISHOP (lateral thought) <---------------> Narrow-minded bishop UNSAFE King-side Narrow-minded BISHOP <--------------> Open-minded bishop (irony) SAFE Queen-side Unfriendly KNIGHT <-----------------> Friendly knight Introvert ROOK <----------------> Extrovert rook Internal will PAWN <-----------------> External will pawn For starters we now have thousands of combinations. Yet but a few major starters: if you are all ego then you are what pre DSMV would (incorrectly BTW) call a psychopath: in this model you are a fearless person. Who thinks himself God because there is no feeling available in order to guess what will happen when coming across a never observed animal say a bear. There is no imagination available that it could possibly be dangerous. God versus bear leaves the poor beast chance-less. When the bear is only a bit peckish and only rips the arm off the poor bugger then he will have only rationally learnt that bears might be dangerous. Had he not tripped it would have been alright. So second time round still fearless he gets his other arm ripped off. These people are great aids when trying as cavemen to get a bear out of his jacket. Yet not a good idea as we are doing now having them the CEO because they sink the ship for you and shortly after having well lined their pockets will leave the sinking ship. They are alas MN executioners. So beware. Shock and awe tactics don’t work for these 1% of the populace. If you are born a Large KING you are 80% shore a male. Usually the rest of the settings will thus go to the ego side. However you are at the same-time also preset either small or big queen. If you are small queen in the nurture that ensues you are also prone to the small social side. You thus have four (including the psychopath gorilla five) basic types in DSM6 everyone mad except < 1%: The four communication styles accompany the preferred styles. The right-wing lateral humor chimpanzee the joker and fighter 9% logic / fear on stated goal The left-wing irony humor bonobo the Napoleon leader actor / salesperson flirt-er 10% logic/fear on relation The religious conscientious (= will power PAWN) Bokitio (gorilla) authoritative leader 10% logic/ fear loss of authority The religious conscientious (= low on ego) humble baboon authority minded 70% of the populace. Now you can thus be a chimpanzee in an unsafe situation yet having a well fitting bonobo suit in the safe side. Only under great stress can you see what you yourself are in fact deed down. Yet this can be tested or better said also assessed. The will power makes it possible to play the other side. If you are pawn- pawn you need social pressure to do this. If you are PAWN –PAWN you have a great personal will power and do not need social pressure to do things that you don’t like. Will power is like that the board is on a turning table with either a strong spring small pawn or large spring large PAWN. Willpower is like a muscle it gets tired. You can’t play something you are not for very long. Actors of course are better at that than non actors. Einstein was probably a fast –fast brain and non ironic yet lateral humour albeit he also had the social trait of friendliness. So immediately when you detect ironic humor you know even given a fast-fast brain it is not an Einstein because the other program takes up to much memory space. And alertness then of the Big Five? Fighter traits come into play at a higher stress level (the fearless the highest of course) than flirter trait and that comes at a higher stress-optimum than freezers. The more ego the less scared because they simply don’t have the imagination to compute what could go wrong. So to stand guard you best have a freezer. Mind if the stress level rises to quickly you go over the optimum and become panicked. Even further you freeze up completely and can’t even flee in panic let alone withdraw. Churchill was in this model a baboon chimpanzee so a sociable in the end fighter. When these are at wits end and start crying as Churchill did hearing that El Alamein was lost then the end is neigh. These are the good creative broadband guessers giving even under great stress a probable creative solution, yet only when balanced by a conscientious Alan Brook Bokito type who doesn't understand him and of course a friendly wife. With Churchill you measure lateral humor combined with ironic humor. The chessboard BTW has a strong DNA touch to it, that religious people don’t like. BTW religious belief in authority doesn't necessarily also mean belief in God. Or the same authority. Please comment, still work in progress. Alas the image of the chessboard was to large to upload. It depicts as stated two sets of pieces large and small at the usual places. A white maker under either the large or the small one to indicate the choice. There are four forms of culturally independent humour forms: lateral humour - ironic humour the combibation of the two and humourless on both. See my other post. And no because GPIP is Guinea Pig in Pitfall: you want to maintain that the test was not evident irony? I only need prove a possible LR > 1 on any trait and have very convincingly might I add done so. The forms of humour have nothing to do with culture: out of the paradigm on goal orientated logic is in all cultures perceived as funny. What specifically is out of the box or paradigm is of course culturally dependent. It could be the Guinea Pig didn't know about Shakespeare or so. Indeed. So you need to do the test within a cultural environment. Do you want to poise the position that the Gunea Pig in casu had cultural difficulties with Shakespeare? Anyway it shows it is possible to do so. Why the link irony social? I'd say try and guess. Openness is thus possible on lateral thought (=/= per se funny for survival trait Dolphins and predators are playful fighters that easily like humans for that very reason. openness is also possible on being able to communicate and relate to all types of human, that requires the trait to act or lie = ironic saying one yet meaning the other. Survival trait lure in the prey come in here to mate and pounce. Nothing to do with culture. And yes you can detect these traits......if you have them of course otherwise not.

Now just to recapitulate as to the OP and the event that took place where 298 of which 193 Dutch died and what that means in the sense that a great many Dutch actually know someone that knows one of more people on that plane. My wife works at university and saw and spoke to professor of law and senator Willem Witteveen the day before he died with wife and daughter leaving a son. How does Just Proof deal with this as in part also an international law problem? Because the facts need yet to be established I'll assume as a thought experiment that they are indeed ultimately established the way that it looks that the facts are going to be found out. When was it known by whom that the separatists had missiles that could shoot down aircraft at the height of commercial aircraft? Any organisation / authority that had knowledge of this and didn't strive to close down the airspace should be held legally accountable. This for the future. You don't want this sort of price competition. You need to be able to trust the authorities to act on information and acquire such information. Of course the blithering baboon with a missile that ordered the button to be pressed, and didn't prevent checks that this could happen and had the possibility to do so yet didn't should also have swift justice administered in the form of a long jail sentence. Problem is alas in wars you always have these sort of apes pressing buttons. Preventing wars is better than fighting them. The justice system is - per definition - the last stand before a fighting conflict. To be able to judge someone you must be able to understand all of humanity and not just only half or a part of humanity. Humanity is divided in people with and nearly without the survival trait humour. Humanity is also divided in half between people with and nearly without the survival trait irony. Humanity is also dived in half on the survival trait independent Ego (self) and the survival group (social) trait. In order a legal system to judge, irony has it that the ones who don't like to judge, namely the ones with lateral humour and irony, yet have enough ego to dare take a decision in the full knowledge that it has a great chance of being wrong, yet needs to be taken, are the one's that are essential in the decision loop. Because they are the only ones who accept everybody as being normal as they are, with very little exceptions deemed indeed abnormal. People without humour simply can't understand the ones with humour. People without irony simply can't understand the ones that do. You don't need a quasi opjective checklist with tests that makes it possible for a psychologist without humour to test in order to assess if the object of observation has humour. You let a psychologist of whom is known that he or she has a fast brain and lateral humour and irony assess that. Simple. Ultimately - even in science - it is about trust, more so than objectivity. The latter can be a lie if given by the untrustworthy. The world needs in the long run if we want to survive on a goal of all having long and fulfilling lives the least infringing on that of others and during a crises creative lateral solutions (= need humour) in place that will be acceptable for all (=> irony). In this thread I've proven you can detect both easily if you poses both. At this moment the legal system together with the behavioral sciences are deeming this essential group for survival deficient and disorderly in the brain department. Proof DSMV => half the population become more and more the losers = choosers => democratic instability we observe more and more and that will predictably get far worse. This has got seriously out of hand. Remedy => Just Proof. .

#118 is a proof of measured lack of openness on relationship via the times of missing evident irony are quantified. It is a GPIP quantification. The other is in mentioned previous posts in the quote you gave (reading the quote helps). Mind, you lot want to quantify something that I don't find necessary at all. The actual underlying point is can one determine the correct judges for the team. Of course you can even without quantifying it. The only thing the simple fact that it is possible shows that you indeed can get the required team in order.

Well so does then the Wikipedia page then overclaim. You simply have problems to comprehend that you can have more than one definition. Or stipulative definition. So most people agree with the way of defining it as Wikipedia does. Apart from that fact the more complex way as I also adhere to always works, yours only when you have a negligible fault rate. If that is the case there is no problem. It is apart from that not a democratic principle. The way most people see it is simply the logically only correct way to see it. You et al strangely enough can't be made to understand that. Actually it is not so strange but still. You say any measurable quantifiable registration-able something is objective. Anything that is not quantifiable in your opinion such as openness is not objective. That is okay as long as you stay within the field where it applies. Yet you want to dictate its use all over the place even when it is illogical to do so. Further more you et al make claims of the incorrectness of what I state yet don't bother to disprove my or prove yours. If you state position you must - even in science - prove position. I've done so on the appropriate norm. You haven't. And can't for your position is inherently illogical. Again science is by humans for humans and humans are subjects and thus subjective per inescapable definition. To get an object of observation more objective can thus only be done inter-subjectively. Anything can be put into measurable numbers. This line of text is also put to numbers by the computer. Whether or not there is added value to put certain observations such as opinions such as whether or not something is pretty, and to what degree it is thought to be pretty is a different question. But you can, and it is done all the time. Whether you agree with that or not. You can measure in a quantifiable way whether you are pretty Strange or not. Yet we need then a photo of you. You do that via a survey.

Great you nitpick about punctuation, then use a correct way of defining how to misquote someone i.e. leave an important part out that has indeed happened, for I show here that I used a thought experiment, that you show not to portray reality, which is a given. I'm not saying that you can or can't do proper thought experiments. I'm saying you evidently missed one here, and I don't see any other explanation for that than that you indeed didn't see it. The simple consequence then logically is that this provides an LR on the point that we are discussing without any further conclusion to be drawn as to your ability when properly assessed on said personality trait. It is not about you. The ability to persuade others or an audience I actually do know quite a bit about, both in theory and practice yet how to sway an audience against current paradigm when the authority isn't as yet swayed is a by me as yet not discovered problem. But I guess you with your experience in that field do know? Let me guess, know your audience use their way of preferred reasoning in casu direct, keep their focus by following their paradigm and then in line with that make a slight alteration. As a main course of action. Something along those lines? As for measurement equipment seeing you indulge in them: I have a pilot flying a plane with only three knobs: higher, same height, lower. The computer does the rest providing the pilot uses his mark 1 mod 1 eyeballs. Then the measurement equipment on proper definition are the eye balls that pass the information on to the brain and then to the three knobs? Now if I put the pilot in a cockpit with only a video screen portraying a little cross depicting the plane a line depicting the horizon coupled to a video-camera and a computer transforming the information into set information, then you would say what the pilot is using is not measurement equipment? And would your definition vary if the flat-screen simply shows what the camera shows? And if the latter is not a measurement device for height, well why not switch it off then? I'll tell you why you can't then switch the instrumentation off the reason is it measures your height in a quantifiable way: nose below horizon you are going down. All the rest you said is immaterial how it actually works and how experienced you are.. osted Today, 09:38 AM Quote Yes, this is an objective measurement. (Whether it is recorded or not). Well done. End quote; Now I'd call this pretty strange Strange that you here state that in English you are saying quite the opposite of what I say you said here: You state that a subject: a biologist does an objective measurement in observing three birds. It is a logic dictate that it is then at the same time both objective i.e. to be taken as fact and subjective i.e. done by a subject. Not so much command of the English language but logic is the problem then I guess. Indeed, as I sated earlier I too find that the behavioral sciences overstate their position. I accept it as important rules of thumb that can because they are consistent with the rules of thumb in history and law can be taken as a fact as a basis for taking decisions on how to change a model given a need to change. Oh and BTW the model is stronger than you think and as in all soft sciences has its opponents. yet they have nothing better either, although they might claim that. This is the most widely held to be correct model available. (That BTW can elegantly explain the traits are claimed can not be. I'm working on that. Yet it don't need it for Just Proof.) What do you propose ditch all of soft science? In favor of what? Don't you think you are over-asking if you demand an exact science before taking any decision?

Dear Ophiolite if you quote quote correctly: "Would you call the flat-screen in a plane depicting an instrument showing whether the plane is in level flight, going up or down a measuring device? Does it make one iota of difference that the same flat-screen shows a video shot of the plane relative to the horizon or that the information contained in that is transformed into an artificial horizon with a picture of a plane on it? Of course not. To all intent and purposes the video when turned on and brought into communication with the pilot can be seen as a measuring device to measure going up 1, staying level 1/2 going down 0. That in a real plane it is in reality done differently is beside the point. The question is CAN a video be used as such? YES it can. And it IS used in that way in biology:" In misquoting me you make it appear as if I don't know that this is done differently. Even when I explicitly state that I know this you portray otherwise. Why is that? Could it be you simply can't register a thought experiment that I used? A thought experiment like Einstein made with a fantasy world thinking about how it would be when you travel at the speed of light and observe. There are people who can do this and people who have great difficulty in picturing anything else than what they perceive as reality. It is just like an inability to spot evident irony. Which as I've shown you can measure in a quantifiable way as shown with the kind help of Physica. Now you provide me the same kind courtesy. It is the inability to spot evident lateral openness. Why is it that you didn't spot this evident thought experiment and took it as being an incorrect portrayal of an actual aircraft? You wanted like Physica to help me prove my point that you can in a quantifiable way and thus objectively measure openness this way? Or you wanted to in-justly portray my ignorance? For in this act you otherwise give me a LR > 1 of not having spotted a lateral way of thinking. Not that we can draw any conclusion on that towards you yet, if we would like to do that. The only thing I have to prove is that this form of openness can this way be objectively quantifiable and when videoed even high-tend inter-subjectivity and thus objectivity past an inter-subjective norm prove an objective scientific fact. But I already went into that in my last post to Swansont, that I don't think you read before posting this one. Anyway many thanks.. Well we're finally getting places then. So you accept that a subjective observation can count as an objective fact. Well in the previous posts to Swansont and Ophiliote you see that you can measure and how you can measure openness in a quantifiable way and via registering even high-tend objective way. Even "pretty" can be objectified in a quantifiable way. You survey and see what types of faces are for instance deemed pretty in what measure by what groups. These surveys are done all the time in behavioral sciences. Very good. The Big Five personality-traits have been found to be in multiple tests culturally independent. It probably thus is DNA based as I strongly feel it is, as I've stated earlier as well.) So no, your conclusion is wrong. It works all over the place for us humans.

How does the act of recording make something objective? Again it can't if we use your definition of objectivity yet can if you use the broadly held definition in soft science that also envelops the exact science. In fact it is philosophy and logic that teaches this. In science per overriding definition it is substance (i.e. observation of an object) over form (i.e. subjective or inter-subjective formality such as the choice of the appropriate norm for the degree of objectivity that is required before it is called "objective" i.e. is proven to be objective and thus taken as an objective fact in the subsequent reasoning. The forgotten instrument between the ears is coupe to its measurement requirement such as the mark 1 mod 1 eyeballs a completely scientifically valid objective measuring device. So when a biologist sees three birds flying he measures in a quantifiable way three such objects and for the biologist constituting thus an objective scientific fact. It is immaterial whether other measuring devices such as the renown automated bird counter that provides a needle pointing at three registered birds is added between the instrument between the ears and the eyes and the object: three birds. Yet for another scientist who has not seen these three birds the observation of the biologist in writing in words or any other way of communicating to him is the subjective observation of his colleague. If he trusts his colleague he will find it an objective quantified observation. The simple act of video of these three birds makes it possible to make the stated subjective observation if seen from a third party and at the same time objective observation from the biologist himself more objective. If we subsequently introduce the inter-subjective rule that only the observation of three biologists as peer group will suffice as norm for the proof of concluding that three birds (and thus not bats) where observed then after that formality may the scientific on that norm concluded conclusion be drawn that three birds have been observed flying over the South Pole mid winter for instance. having the videotape makes it thus objective when the other two weren't present when the birds were observed. You don't understand relativity, or nauseating Bayesian reasoning or the fact that science is not democratic when you conclude otherwise. The basic error in your reasoning is that you forget that the definitions you use are subordinate to the object and goal of science in search of truth. You make this error because you forget that the error rate in the field from which it stems and where it applies - the exact sciences such as physics the error rate is negligible. In the soft sciences it isn't. You are posing position in a soft science topic so please use the appropriate scientific applicable norms. You don't. basic error. you make the same error in reasoning in your own field BTW when trying to reach a goal of unifying GR and QM.

I just proved it to Physica how you measure and quantity irony. 1 1/2 0 and subsequently you count the statistics of people i.e. inter-subjectively = more objectivity on the basis of what the video measures and shows give us the statistics. The definition of Wikipedia that Swansont and you try to ignore yet is part of accepted current science yet soft science. You persist up to the hilt only to want to talk hard exact science and that norm. That norm is childish i.e. of a 12 year old Einstein when used in this topic. Even after it has been repeatedly explained to you, in different ways and even shown how you can measure a 1 in the last Shakespeare post you still don't get it. EVEN in an exact science as physics is not absolutely objective. Ultimately it is at best extremely high inter-subjective in the sense that no-one can be found that objects to the claimed quantified degree of objectivity. Would you call the flat-screen in a plane depicting an instrument showing whether the plane is in level flight, going up or down a measuring device? Does it make one iota of difference that the same flat-screen shows a video shot of the plane relative to the horizon or that the information contained in that is transformed into an artificial horizon with a picture of a plane on it? Of course not. To all intent and purposes the video when turned on and brought into communication with the pilot can be seen as a measuring device to measure going up 1, staying level 1/2 going down 0. That in a real plane it is in reality done differently is beside the point. The question is CAN a video be used as such? YES it can. And it IS used in that way in biology: Take a test of Myth-busters to see if an elephant is scared by a mouse. The fact that they filmed the reaction of the elephant objectifies answering the question whether the elephant was indeed more scared of the mouse than of the control. Inter-subjectively you need to say: 1 = indeed scared 1/2 failed test or 0 not scared. How does a scared elephant behave and how do you measure that: in a more objective way: you video it. So all discussions on but the elephant wasn't scared or was can be inter-subjectively and quantifiable if you where to do a survey that is then only possible by using a video as measuring device. To communicate to the instrument between the ears. "IF POSSIBLE" what do those words mean to you? It means that you can and may given the correctness of the Wikipedia that you can objectify solely by a measurement done by the instrument between the ears via the detectors eyes. More of them you quantify in units 1 1&0 0. being a quantifiable measurement and objective at a degree on the definition given by Wikipedia and used in soft science. Objective is relative and not absolute.

Well the topic being to assess Just Proof and in part that has boiled down to the question whether or not it is possible to objectively assess whether or not a judge candidate can be found to reside in the R&D. More precise to assess whether or not the candidate has sufficient active and passive mastery of irony and active and passive mastery of lateral humour. As you in your post #114 as in this post as well have not been very friendly to me quid pro quo the following: After laboriously having set up an experiment in order to Justly prove my point by digging a large pitfall and covering it up, I placed a large sign in front of it reading "Shakespeare!" yet made the cover up via a reference towards a post of Ophilite's objection of me using Shakespeare style language in the 21st century. . Now the test goes as follows: I chalk up a 1 if someone falls in the pitfall irony and a 1 for the pitfall humour a 1/2 irrelevant if nothing happens and a 0 if someone reacts explicitly calling out the humour and the irony. So I noticed I got two bad rep points after several people viewed my post. This is irrelevant thus 1/2. Now your post to which I'm reacting now whilst peeking over the rim of the pitfall you've entered and observing - objectively - you barking at me whether or not I understand the literal meaning of several words I would say I can objectively chalk up a 1 on a LR (I can leave out whether that would be a 2; 10; 100 or what not towards lack of irony and a 1 on a LR anyway also > 1 on lack of humour for you not spotting this evident humour and irony. Albeit that in this case because I tested both humour and irony at the same time lack of humour only in one sense of it but that is the same as what I've measured with irony. Being agitated by the irony might have made you blind for the other Einstein form of lateral humour. So on that a 1/2. Mind, this is not about assessing you but about assessing Just Proof, yet you have participated in a scientific quid pro quo test. Of the same sort that Swansont had tried in vain to set up for me as he remarked he hadn't foreseen the turn that would inevitably be made. Why is it evident you might then ask? Well I assume you at least have had some general knowledge at school or elsewhere on the existence of Shakespeare? If not please google his name and see what you can learn of the use of irony, colourfull metaphor; exaggeration et cetera et cetera et cetera. You evidently missed all that unless you for instance where to state that you deliberately knowing full well that it was a pitfall decided to help me prove my point by jumping in and starting to bark at me. Now there are people who incorrectly would conclude that you've acted or even are a bloody idiot. Neither is true. First of all because an idiot falls outside the normal distribution of normal people when defined via Just Proof. And secondly to quote Shakespeare on this "a fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool". We are all IMO as in fact correct use of DSMV as DSM 6 or even DSM 7 entails all each and every one of us both geniuses and fools at the same time. All in different areas. Further more you can not conclude on one test like this anything about you because you are not part of what is to be assessed either. An actual and correct assessment of someone is of course done differently. Yet what we can conclude is that it is possible in this way of assessing people - as is the current textbook of behavioral science to assess that someone has certain personality traits. And put a quantifiable number on it. And if done verbally could of been videoed. So that the assessed person can say that he didn't say this or that. We can hold a survey and see what points large groups of people hold as to the question at hand based on the objective data. That is thus also quantifiable and thus measurable. That makes it inter-subjective and thus more objective. And we can send this post to a peer group of people who are widely recognized such as certain stand up comedians or what not as to ascertain whether it was humour and irony et cetera. Oh and BTW in the fact that I used irony you can conclude that I'm less probably as good an Einstein as Einstein even if I had the same fast brain as he, which I probably don't have either. And, thank you again for proving several points in one post by you. I saw the French police use the video actually it was a webcam in a laptop by a guy in shorts who was communicating with the police further ahead. and think they used a computer-program that can calculate the speed of a car that is driving past. The police a bit further stopped several cars that where clearly speeding and let the ones that where not pass. This should be possible IMO, Whether indeed it was done that way or the way Strange implies is actually immaterial for it should be possible to use the webcam (= video) in this way as part of a measuring device. For you can register an object and subsequently either inter-subjectively (= quantifiable) by large groups or by an other measuring device that gives of a reading to be ultimately analysed by a inter-subjective peer group. A video can thus be an indispensable tool for making objective measurement possible. Now the other point is that you still haven't said what you qualms are concerning the Wikipedia definition of objectivity so I may in scientific law practice that this thread is about take it as a fact that it is indeed probably fully correct. Now then the other point I'd like to make is that it states "scientists strive, where possible, to eliminate human senses by the use of standardized measuring tools like meter sticks,.." In this case it is not possible to eliminate the human factor. Yet by using video you can measure via a survey what others think about it and you get statistics quantifiable units of people stating yes irony no irony or what not.

Oh Ophiolite, can't you see in th' oceans sea lies what you miss, that is to embrace this pestilence cast on thee, for isn't truth of anti-these what needs be? You fled once and welcomed back now try cast the dagger in my back? Or do you stand your ground however inept the opponent be? Yet at wits end maybe, remember the flame of stake is not the Just cling flung right or left yet wrong. Art thou religious maybe? For independence of thought foolish to no end, is that not the heart and soul of science you portray to defend? What is the thought to thee on the nicked remark: "The quality of mercy is not strain'd, It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest: It blesseth him that gives and him that takes." ? The Shakespeare society will have me hanging from my balls of the yardarm for this pitiful exercise in incorrect English. For who was it said: "By the way Shakespearean style English would be inappropriate on a 21st century science forum. But I am sure that, as an honourable man, you know that."?. Now with whom do you guess would Shakespeare agree? BTW with all the fun, I haven't even got round to your previous post. Sorry for that. yet in due course...

Okay, in a scientific discussion on law, if you pose position you prove position. You posed this position in effect earlier and were asked an appropriate question that you now via posturing try to dodge. Normal conclusion if you leave the battle of wit after being asked to to clarify that you have lost the debate. By withdraw or fleeing. Endy0816, on 16 Jul 2014 - 02:39 AM, said: Not exactly, anyway it is not tradition for some odd reason to have the judge or jury passing the verdict: "suspect Harry could be found guilty" So then I'll make it more simple: we have the witness and what the 12 year said and Harry saying he helped her up but didn't molest her and the DNA. Now would you take your feeling into consideration in passing a verdict? If not why not? If so how then? How good would you say as a LR would be in ascertaining whether a open minded person is credible is in comparison to open minded people? So pass verdict and say what you do given the different feelings. Not be-known to the judge or jury but to us now is that Harry is in fact innocent and is an open minded character. END QUOTE EARLIER POST Well then what was your answer or have you indeed fled, after a while maybe hoping everybody forgot the question put forward to you? Your present post has just been dealt with in the answer to Swansont and the rest are general not substantiated, general remarks. You further forget the change is minimal. The predicted effect great. If it proves not to work you simply change it back. For logic has it that if there is indeed a fundamental and serious urgent problem you need to change something and not leave it at that unless you state that there is no problem. Ergo you only agree with the first dictionary way of defining what is to be understood under the term "objective" . If that is so then you are right and we agree. Yet that is only for simple problems, and I guess you don't agree with that. Yet then you must oppose the better definition of Wikipedia. The link is titled objectivity and deals exactly with the problem at hand. So it can't be irrelevant but only incorrect then. Yet you don't state that. For obvious reasons for it is correct and far superior and more deeply thought through analysis of the definition. So you leave us in the dark if you don't exactly state what in your opinion is wrong with the definition in the Wikipedia I gave. So, until you clarify I can hold you are trying to obfuscate the issue. First things first: is that page on what "objectivity" means and is fully correct or not? And if not, please correct it so that we might reach consensus on what is to be understood even in current science as Wikipedia IMO correctly portrays contrary to your position? Science uses video for measuring all the time BTW. In biology and what not. You are nitpicking because cornered. The police BTW in France measure car-speeds with a video. Now I would like to see you argue your way out of a speeding ticket in French courts because it isn't an objective measurement.

ob·jec·tive [uhb-jek-tiv] Show IPA noun 1. something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; purpose; goal; target:the objective of a military attack; the objective of a fund-raising drive. 2. Grammar . a. Also called objective case. (in English and some other languages) a case specialized for the useof a form as the object of a transitive verb or of a preposition, as him in The boy hit him, or me in He comes to me with his troubles. b. a word in that case. 3. Also called object glass, object lens, objective lens. Optics. (in a telescope, microscope, camera,or other optical system) the lens or combination of lenses that first receives the rays from theobject and forms the image in the focal plane of the eyepiece, as in a microscope, or on a plate orscreen, as in a camera. See diag. under microscope. adjective 4.being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions. 5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: anobjective opinion. 6.intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as aperson or a book. 7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to thethinking subject (opposed to subjective ). 8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of anobject; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality. ​If we take this as the definition on a Just Proof norm I'd say it suffices as a definition to be used for teaching up to a creative intelligence level of a 12 year old Einstein. Because on that definition given more difficult questions it leads to errors in reasoning such as the answer that recording given this definition doesn't make something objective. ​Now if we subsequently - given more complex problems - heighten the norm to that of a 16 year old Einstein then as a temporary Just Proof approved definition you get the following full Wikipedia page I gave earlier and you'd best then study. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science) ​Within that page you see the following text: Objectivity in measurement[edit]To avoid the variety in subjective (equivocal) interpretation of quantifying terms such as "green", "hot", "large", "considerable", and "negligible", scientists strive, where possible, to eliminate human senses by the use of standardized measuring tools like meter sticks, stopwatches, thermometers, electromechanical measuring instruments, spectrometers, voltmeters, timers, oscilloscopes, and gravimeters. This eliminates much of the perceptive variability of individual observers. The results of measurements are expressed on a numerical scale of standard units so that everybody else understands them the same way. Where nominal data must be used, the ideal is to use "hard", objective criteria for assigning the classifications (see Operational definition), such that different classifiers would produce the same assignments.[citation needed] Now after the words "standardized measuring tools like..." you add video (and the act of recording). After you've done that you will conclude - as explained in a high speed train reflective style way earlier to you - that the objectivity has been heightened by this act. A video is a measuring device it measures and registers at the same time. And if you want to nitpick take a digital one it measures in 1 and 0. And to add to the next point you want to make: you add the social process of multi-individuals: The role of the scientific community[edit] Various scientific processes, such as peer reviews, the discussions at scientific conferences, and other meetings where scientific results are presented, are part of a social process whose purpose is to strengthen the objective aspect of the scientific method.[citation needed] In effect you then have the feelings of many individuals on an object of study that has properly been registered leading to high-tend objectivity even in physics. And Just Proof simply adds to the list of measuring devises the instrument between the ears. No fallacy. Ergo Just Proof is peer reviewed by the appointing committee. That it self if you want can be verified by the video. Yet, again I see no need to video.

Then please correct Wikipedia. You can look onto objective in a Bayesian or in a deterministic way. The latter excludes the former, the former includes the latter. You use the latter in an area law psychology where you should use the former. Yet your authoritative (= religious) bible of exact science prohibits you to even think in terms of grey. it is only black or white.

You sound like a gramophone with a scratch on it. Restating that I haven't actually answered your question again and again, where as I can't for the life of me see what I then haven't answered? No middle ground. I've bashed your position from absolute truth all the way to a subjective point of view. All you subsequently do is state: "you haven't answered my question". Well that's easy. Where you do state something you sate a strawman. The way in which you record something adds to its objectivity. They are interlinked recording method and obejtivity. As the Wikipedia page also shows. Apart from that your question was off topic all along anyway. Because I stated you don't need to use a video in the casus.

Ah your back? Thought you left us. Guess my horrid way of maltreating even raping the beauty of the English language especially falling short of your expert word wizard way has drawn you in again. And welcome back. Thank you for your post. Indeed I can be wrong. That is inherent in Just Proof. There are many ways to do something, indeed. It is outdated if you subscribe to DSMV. Do you subscribe to DSMV? I.e. that 47,5 % of the populace including Einstein is mad? You demand of me that I communicate with you in a direct mode correct? But what is wrong with a reflective style that I prefer and is also befitting the R&D topic it is? It is the difference between a slow commuter train the direct style: it needs to stop at every detail station and a high speed high voltage intercity that skips all that. The latter is thus deemed dangerous and vague viewed from a commuter perspective. Both trains are equally good trains. They communicate differently. Indeed a high speed train can slow down more than a commuter can speed up, But a high speed train is still a not very good commuter. Yet a commuter can still have -edit the same! - fast engine as a brain. It is built for a different purpose. The personality makes for the type of train you are. Get it? That is why after years of strenuous research I've devised DSM 6 everyone is mad except 1% that are in deep coma etc.. It is further exactly the same as DSMV. You just re-sticker a lot until you get it under 1%. Then especially for the more serious types I've devised the Bayesian inversion of that DSM7 everybody sane and normal except less than 1%. The latter to be used in the courts. The other outside the courts. Remember what Shakespeare - sorry for incorrectly bringing him up again - said? DSM 7 holds that some disorders and deficiencies are inherently not that at all, and that some are caused by a sick society. Take this out and you are under 1% again. Now I don't know what you are, yet because you stated a lot at my expense so quit pro quo (oops quid) Now why the hell did I do that wrong again? And what do you believe? Are you so arrogant as to find that 47,5 % of the population is mad, except you and your mates then? What makes you think Endy is in need of your help? Can't he fend for himself? His loose analogy is absolutely wrong that I understood it to be BTW. Why do you think I took it to be strict? He can spot that directly as you evidently can't or he can try to get out of the bind he's in. Indeed we all have an open-mindedness-meter in the instrument between the ears. Some better than others. So indeed different people will make different judgements. Yet teamed up properly on same sort of people make on average more of the same judgements in a significant way. DSM7 can help you assess that. Just Proof: don't try to measure high voltage with a low voltage voltmeter. It says plop! or even BOOM!! Use the high voltage for that and measure the low voltage with the low voltage meter between the ears. Get it?

Yes and no. We humans measure what we think is happening in the world we perceive. Yet we define that as subjective. Okay we multiply that observational measurement by having more humans do the observation and find out what they say they have measured. In the end on an absolute norm no different than what a physicist says he saw with a needle. As I said it is norm dependent. And a group of subjective people choose a norm based on a risk assessment etc.. Same in law.

You have more time to study from different angles even if you like what exactly happened apart from what you as a participant subjectively thought that happened. So you can tae more information out of what happened for one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science) it is stated it has issues so maybe you want to comment on the par that says: " Objectivity is often attributed to the property of scientific measurement, as the accuracy of a measurement can be tested independent from the individual scientist who first reports it.[citation needed] It is thus intimately related to the aim of testability and reproducibility. To be properly considered objective, the results of measurement must be communicated from person to person, and then demonstrated for third parties, as an advance in understanding of the objective world." Anyway you've been checkmated on your position already in the previous post. It is norm dependent, yet you have clearly only learned to think in dogmatical terms of applying one norm in any context. Or to make it even more understandable as a physicist when a scientist called let's say: Swansont looks at the needle of his measurement equipment and says it reads 0.089 having a video of what that needle has done would that be more or the same or less objective in your expert opinion. I'd say more.

Okay you like economics as the soft side I guess. Now you state that I'm as naive (=childish) as the people who in the past instituted central planning which we now know with hind sight failed. You surmise that the reasoning I do is the same error in reasoning as they have done and that you wouldn't of made such a mistake. I hope you already see that I've caught you out on an error in reasoning. That you say I make. edit: Ad overworked system. What I propose has already been proven to work extremely well, for it already existed. in the kort geding, the RC and the raadkamers doing just that passing temporary decisions in Dutch law. Open minded judges had often than not solved the problem in that early faze. Parties reaching a deal and in so doing ending the court case. Especially the consientious judges that have more and more come on the scene they make for prolonged proceedings that rise up to planet jura. But, we'll take your example because it is clearly more in your comfort zone of knowledge. These people what do you know about their psyche? Can we with hindsight ascertain if they where fast thinking conscientious big ego's that had little humour and irony? I bet they where. Okay you put me in that box as being naive so quit pro quo (oops quid). You must know who they where tell us something about them. For otherwise you've passed judgement on them and me and yourself BTW without proper investigation. Big no no in Just Proof that is. Yet not in your way of dealing with it I guess? The problem of a taboo exists, and will immediately reside when the authority accepts the new way. Judges that say no now will immediately say yes ounce the law changes and the supreme courts agree. That is not naive that is the way it works as is also current psychology. (And history) That it will be extremely difficult to change a paradigm is stated by me so I can't be naive as to that fact. That paradigms change is also a fact. Inherent with a paradigm is that a vast majority of people will cling on to that like a baboon onto a banana and only close the barn door after the horse has bolted. Science isn't democratic. So that vast number of yours is irrelevant. apart from that you lot disagree with the Einstein, Shakespeare, Churchill etc way of thinking.. The definitions aren't a problem in Just Proof it is the way you deal with them. If you have a production mind set you are dogmatic and take all that literally. If you have a creative mindset like Einstein, Shakespeare, Churchill, Newton, Darwin et cetara who in your eye's must have been naive as well because they can do R&D relativity. They don't take it all that seriously. Because if you have for instance the knowledge how a law is actually made (=/= naive) then you would see that you're naive idea of dogmatically rigidly applying definitions is laughably foolish and naive. BTW how do you think laws are actually made? Just is of course something that is to be seen and understood at the moment it was applied and not with a hind sight bias or with an idea of an ideal or perfect world. The latter you have from a production viewpoint. Just is no more than the honest guess as what that should be and not some idealized fantasy world that can't work other than having complete evidence which you simply don't have yet must decide. The law is just one of the elements though a very important one in finding out what is justice at a certain moment in time: how old is the law? have the political boundaries shifted? Is something blocking the possibility of seeing justice even though a clear and prolonged vast majority of people deem for instance euthanasia just yet the law prohibited it because of a political deal having a small minority needed for economic reasons baring a change in the law. It were the Dutch judges that made it possible. Yet you would say they were wrong? On dogmatic grounds? Because they took dictatorial power? Not exactly, anyway it is not tradition for some odd reason to have the judge or jury passing the verdict: "suspect Harry could be found guilty" So then I'll make it more simple: we have the witness and what the 12 year said and Harry saying he helped her up but didn't molest her and the DNA. Now would you take your feeling into consideration in passing a verdict? If not why not? If so how then? How good would you say as a LR would be in ascertaining whether a open minded person is credible is in comparison to open minded people? So pass verdict and say what you do given the different feelings. Not be-known to the judge or jury but to us now is that Harry is in fact innocent and is an open minded character. Inter-subjective verification is a way to try and make something as objective as possible. We can't for instance measure that chocolate is better than vanilla without stating what we mean in better. What is the goal? Let's say the question is what should we take into production to win over as many customers for our new brand of ice cream. Should we use chocolate or vanilla? You can devise a test in which you have your control group of potential customers eat ice cream and video them to see if they indeed at least say and in non verbal way show that they actually do like one above the other. But in the end it is much more good creative guesswork that decides what works and not so much just doing tests. Doing cleaver creative tests yes that indeed helps. And again you can of course delete the video and trust a good committee that has proven over the years to provide judges that stand in high esteem, and justly so in my subjective opinion. But if you want to video tape it. It will provide more objectivity because verification and objectivity are closely interlinked. You don't have that problem so much in physics. yet in law and psychology we don't have that luxury of complete or nearly complete evidence yet being forced to decide. Point is however psychology is IMO far more educated guesswork than that they care to admit. that is pseudo science. Taking a inter-subjective truth as a more or less collectively held guess as a (soft) scientific fact is correct (soft) science. Which it inherently is. Come to think of it even physics is inter-subjective. Who says all those apples fall down. Can I trust you lot? Better video them apples. Would be more objective. It is inter subjectively reached norm dependent and ultimately what you feel, or believe to be true. Even apples.

It does in the soft sciences (and more and more in physics and astronomy BTW) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjective_verifiability Note please that the opposite of subjective is objective. The supportive evidence has been stated in pretty much the same way as you are used too when dealing on a subject concerning physics: go study law and psychology for it is textbook stuff. All the more so because even as a physicist you need to be able to take into account of all the instruments that you used. Like a repeatedly have pointed out to you physicists in general have forgotten about the instrument between the ears. You can't deny this and haven't. What was it you said on that, when you conclude no to Champagne bubbles and yes to BB? One thing is shure you know extremly little about current psychology, that is certain. Again: all psychologists (maybe barring a few) agree that there is a personality trait openness and all agree that it is linked to creativity. All also agree that it is linked to humour and irony the latter on openness in lieu of emotional intelligence. This you can find in any textbook. And, it already knocks your position for six. Then the further position as to the statistics in so far these are not in the textbooks stem from the DSMV story. You simply add up all the statistics involved on open traits and you get half the populace that don't understand irony very well even in the best of circumstances and half the population don't have much creative humour even in the best of cases (= safe environment = textbook stuff) The overlap of the two I guess results in only a quarter of the populace in the best of circumstances can do irony and humour very well. And yes you can objectively on the currently held scientific norms assess this. So buy a textbook on DSMV and study it please. That is your evidence. So the hand that is waving holds textbooks that are hitting you. Namely in the place of your lack of knowledge. A lack of knowledge about your own instrument between the ears that you even as a physicist can't afford to ignore yet choose to. Ignorance is a choice. Go study then pass a judgement. Only part of it can be found on internet. The reason is psychologists as do lawyers BTW earn money in providing this knowledge. Now I guess you would like a peer reviewed reference on that too. But then I'll withdraw the last point because it is not central to the argument. I will laugh though.

Not quite. If you so prefer you could put a camera on the assessment and interview and make it objectively verifiable. I don't see the need. It is BTW objective scientific fact that current psychology states that openness is coupled to creativity and the ability to think lateral or of of the box perceived by many as humour that is also part of the Dunning Kruger test that physicists like to mention. To test humour is actually quite simple if you have it in a more than average way. and, of course if you don't have much humour it is in effect neigh impossible to test. Because those tests can always be known and thus beaten. I.e. everybody (>99%) has humour at the level of a six year old Einstein. Yet you should compare it to a 24 year old Einstein who had an enormous amount of humour. I.e. the capability of relative thought as opposed to only being able to mirror. That is that one is only capable of seeing oneself in the shoes of the other: i.e. "if I was in his shoes I'd be frustrated => he's frustrated." Whereas the person is absolutely not frustrated yet would of been had he chosen another route in life. Same goes for testing irony for openness on the relationship. So taking current behavioral science as a fact Just Proof is scientifically based. The assessment BTW lasts a day and has two acting scenes and another day with the commission. I'd say it is somewhat more rigorous than you make it out to be. And, it doesn't have to be perfect either. It only has to work above par.And whilst working as a judge when seen to be not open-minded in R&D that will then show and can always then be corrected. If you want however a exact scientific norm in law or the way judges or any legal system is implemented you can wait till hell freezes over because it can't be had. You are right. Sorry. My Just Proof is very much more against the fusion of powers than the current Dutch system has, especially in administrative law. The state decides on the facts and the judge only sees if the procedure was formally correct in the case of a citizen against the state. That said I see now that you are against any fusion what so ever, if I understand you correctly? The problem with that is IMO that if you where say to apply that strictness to say the safety rules in trains then hardly a train would leave the station.It is a strike method used by trade-unions. You can't fire them because they abide by the rules. Well in Just Proof you could fire them. In Just Proof when an accident occurs and minor safety rules where breached it doesn't automatically mean someone is guilty and should be scapegoated. If you should pass these verdicts is a different matter because it is subtle Just Proof. In these cases to little data. In practice what do you want when the law has not been amended yet and the judge is confronted with product c yet the law only provides a robot paint-job a or b. You say then a and/or b or no paint? But if you want the judge to act like a robot why then not take the human out of the loop and put a robot in? A robot is a better robot than any human? Simple you do as they did in the DDR you make a photo booth and add a lie-detector and have the computer ask questions and administer an immediate verdict: shoot through head, fine or free him/ her. You have absolute objectivity. Actually there are serious advocates for this. Is that what you would want? And if not why not? Who was it that wrote: "The quality of mercy is not strain'd, It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest: It blesseth him that gives and him that takes." ? Was it not Shakespeare who said: "he who merciless be is but a fool, that a wise man knows himself to be."? Edit: Quote BTW what do you mean with "corruption"? for instance a murder case is that when the grim reaper comes and the body goes into corruption? I.e. I miss a lot in what you say as to how it should work. Okay you choose the judge. As far as I know you have that in the USA. Well you can still do so with just Proof. No problem. Only after you've done that you select the 10% most open minded of them to give the jury / judge an advice. So, I'm still naive. Poor old me. I think I covered the legal versus just bit in the previous post. If not, I'll elaborate. I've casus for you anti Just Proofers: A 12 year old girl Linda claims that she was molested by Harry X. He has pulled her off her bike and insulted her by saying that he wanted sex with her. A. Harry X denies and remains silent; B. Dna of Harry is found on the arm of Linda C. Harry X denies and says he helped her back onto her bike; D. The sister is a witness and says Linda fell off her bike and Harry whilst helping her back on her bike made sexual remarks but couldn't hear exactly what. E. Harry has previous convictions for assault. The law states let's say sexual molest of child 2 years minimum in jail. The suspect has the right to remain silent. And the law states you may not convict on just one testimony (of Linda in this case). What do you do? Always convict? Always free Harry? Sometimes convict and sometimes not? When so when not? In situation A sec? A + B? C + B? and all other combinations? Let's say the brain of the judge / juror gives no feeling, or the feeling Harry is guilty or that Harry is innocent hearing the testimony of Linda. Do you take this into account as having or not having reasonable doubt if the law states that as the norm? Now psychology tells us that open-minded people are deemed strange by others. Harry is an open-minded person. The judge isn't and thus feels that Harry is guilty. Or the jury is 9% open-minded = say one juror who is unfriendly and wants to go home. Only 9% openness because that the case has a lot of publicity against Harry. Well what to do? Mind always not convicting entails a point where angry parents and brothers go act like a lynch mob. And how do you prove that then? And given that Harry is innocent would that change your mind? And given that harry is guilty would that change your mind as to the need to (not) convict?