Can we save the world via Just Proof?

[Strange]

In part in Dutch law. But does it matter? Say you are interested in copying it for the USA. Well send over a group of US experts and they will be told as to how that works. Then they can adapt it to fit their system

 

Crime rates are quite low in Holland, but if this really is the solution to all our problems then there are better examples to choose from:

http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crime_stats_oecdjan2012.pdf

[swansont]

In part in Dutch law. But does it matter?

 

No, it doesn't matter at all. Which is why I've asked for the details. or pointed out you haven't provided them, three times. I mean, what could go wrong? It's not like cultural differences matter or anything. /sarcasm

[kristalris]

 

No, it doesn't matter at all. Which is why I've asked for the details. or pointed out you haven't provided them, three times. I mean, what could go wrong? It's not like cultural differences matter or anything. /sarcasm

okay, cultural differences won't be a problem because it is basic psychology (actually DNA). The Big Five is a broadly held to be culturally independent affair.

 

The system in the Netherlands is one that I will explain more in full yet I have to go now.

[swansont]

okay, cultural differences won't be a problem because it is basic psychology (actually DNA). The Big Five is a broadly held to be culturally independent affair.

 

The system in the Netherlands is one that I will explain more in full yet I have to go now.

 

Cultural differences are not genetic, and you've avoided answering yet again.

[physica]

 

Cultural differences are not genetic, and you've avoided answering yet again.

I think what Kristalris is trying to say is that he finds his meatloaf rather shallow and pedantic

Edited July 14, 2014 by physica

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

kristalris, it's time to go back over the last couple of pages and answer questions. It won't help to stay in "overview" mode. You need to clarify and do your best to aid in comprehension, not blame others because they don't understand what you're saying.

 

And everybody, let's sheathe the snide and not let our frustration at having our questions ignored affect our attitudes, and thus our behavior.

[kristalris]

 

Cultural differences are not genetic, and you've avoided answering yet again.

No I haven't I asked for a short respite. I had other engagements such as a pop concert. Cheap crack you pulled then eh?

 

Anyway you would like to know about the current way judges are selected in the Netherlands (at least a few years back because the system has gone haywire since then) and how Just Proof differs in that?

 

Well, since you are even getting - explicitly - sarcastic on the issue: there are two systems: one for lawyers with less then six years relevant experience and those with more. I had more and was asked if I wanted to become a judge. So as far as I recollect: you send your application letter with cv and (I 'd have to check but from memory after a pop concert) four references as to your person. When you pass the first selection you go to an assessment center where you do IQ test and personality tests and have a talk with the psychologist and do interactive plays with actors.

 

Anywhere across the line the police and secret service have a look as well.

 

If you pass that you go to the commission of I can't remember two times two or three members who as far as I was concerned see if you are a wise person in there opinion.

 

Pass that and the police and security check if you are on record.

 

Then you have to try and get a job with any of the courts. Like a normal job. When accepted you have a one year period in which you beside your normal job have one court session per week with say six or so cases. You need to do the court case and the verdict to satisfaction of all concerned. This in always the penal but also either the civil or administrative chamber.

 

Having passed that you need to find a court that will have you.

 

For the magistrates of the prosecution office where I ended up you have to lead police teams in investigations etc.. After that usually you get appointed and do furter police teams yet in my case my wife got cancer so I had became a DA in a county with ten mayors. Dealing with the small crime scene in the district.

 

How do you distinguish between the personality types? Well, the selection I just mentioned is on conscientiousness as the CV shows etc.. The openness is a you need a thief to catch a thief affair,

 

Openness is the trait that you show a lateral (= out of the box) way of thinking .And you need to show mastery of irony. Given the diploma and the marks thereof show you may assume to be a fast enough thinker.

 

When you are not open-minded enough that will show and thus that will be remedied..

 

If you want to know more you'd have to pay for the translation,

[Endy0816]

^When do you hold elections?

 

In general I think Arrow's Impossibility Theorem would relate. The 'Just Proof' system(described earlier) would be dictatorial.

 

It may well be that is the way society will need to head, but I personally hope otherwise.

[kristalris]

^When do you hold elections?

 

In general I think Arrow's Impossibility Theorem would relate. The 'Just Proof' system(described earlier) would be dictatorial.

 

It may well be that is the way society will need to head, but I personally hope otherwise.

I won't hold elections. It is something that any political party can have in their program. I hope that the leaders will become convinced via several routes that this is the way to get it organised.

 

Your starting insight that it might well be the way forward stems me hopeful. Your hope that it is otherwise is maybe the taboo thought it touches in you. That is the neigh impossible to breach problem that stems me pessimistic.

 

80% of people naturally hope that they are all born tabula rasa and that with hard work you can be anything. Just Proof in effect says that that isn't true.

 

What are you scared of? You state a dictatorship of un- Just Proof? You forget that "Just"of Just Proof is vested in democracies vested in international treaties that define what is Just.

 

I was called naive at the start of the thread. Well I've seen all sides of nearly all forms of the law. Murderers, rapists, innocent, childcare divorcees asylum cases The first time the Netherlands was corrected by the European court of Human Rights was won by me BTW only went there then the third time of the thousand cases I had done. Being described by a scientist who observer that I was an exceptional lawyer of all observed lawyers in actually dealing with the authorities though not being a so called "officer of the court" yet a "hired gun". I thought the judges of the penal court didn't like me. I caused problems for them. Yet it was they who chose me to become a judge.

 

As a DA I was part of the lawmaking process and saw local politics in action. In crises also. So what do you want to know about human behavior or the behavior of human controlled systems in practice?

 

You have the naive thought maybe that judges do what the law states? You think that politicians do what the promise? You think that civil servants like the police do what the people want? Well yes and no. There is a great difference between practice and the theory. It is much more a bunch of apes acting like a bunch of apes, I can tell you. And yes, you can and must organize that basically asap or the shit will predictably hit the fan, for shit happens!

 

And again: Just Proof isn't a dictate other than to the legal system. The trick lies in the human ape trait to copy the leader to a high degree. So not everybody is or needs or should even be forced to conform. Just Proof protects diversity as of natural. It secures OPENNESS = inherent freedom. And what would be wrong in that? You copy the social norm to get properly organised science based R&D advice and reach consensus on that. = organised wisdom in my book. Indeed the freedom to live believing and acting as if apples fall upwards from the tree. Yet when a - conflict !- arises they'd best be known to fall down in the subsequent further guess.

 

And more and more the past twenty years the legal apples are falling upwards in court. => rising tension.

 

Our Dutch system of shares and companies and colonizing a great part of the world who later stated you governed us well, but you governed us can be applied again. Yet with deletion of the latter. In effect the reason that Dutch sport coaches are internationally successful (Hiddink in South Korea is a semi God I'm told) is that they in effect use applied psychology. Like Just Proof in effect is.

 

Overpopulation isn't as such a problem, other than a technical logistical problem even with current technology easy to fix quickly. What is stopping us then? The instrument between the ears. And the taboo is. Change that and you quickly solve the problem. Organize wisdom: Just Proof.

[swansont]

No I haven't I asked for a short respite. I had other engagements such as a pop concert. Cheap crack you pulled then eh?

 

Anyway you would like to know about the current way judges are selected in the Netherlands (at least a few years back because the system has gone haywire since then) and how Just Proof differs in that?

 

Well, since you are even getting - explicitly - sarcastic on the issue: there are two systems: one for lawyers with less then six years relevant experience and those with more. I had more and was asked if I wanted to become a judge. So as far as I recollect: you send your application letter with cv and (I 'd have to check but from memory after a pop concert) four references as to your person. When you pass the first selection you go to an assessment center where you do IQ test and personality tests and have a talk with the psychologist and do interactive plays with actors.

 

Anywhere across the line the police and secret service have a look as well.

 

If you pass that you go to the commission of I can't remember two times two or three members who as far as I was concerned see if you are a wise person in there opinion.

 

Pass that and the police and security check if you are on record.

 

Then you have to try and get a job with any of the courts. Like a normal job. When accepted you have a one year period in which you beside your normal job have one court session per week with say six or so cases. You need to do the court case and the verdict to satisfaction of all concerned. This in always the penal but also either the civil or administrative chamber.

 

Having passed that you need to find a court that will have you.

 

For the magistrates of the prosecution office where I ended up you have to lead police teams in investigations etc.. After that usually you get appointed and do furter police teams yet in my case my wife got cancer so I had became a DA in a county with ten mayors. Dealing with the small crime scene in the district.

 

How do you distinguish between the personality types? Well, the selection I just mentioned is on conscientiousness as the CV shows etc.. The openness is a you need a thief to catch a thief affair,

 

Openness is the trait that you show a lateral (= out of the box) way of thinking .And you need to show mastery of irony. Given the diploma and the marks thereof show you may assume to be a fast enough thinker.

 

When you are not open-minded enough that will show and thus that will be remedied..

 

If you want to know more you'd have to pay for the translation,

 

IOW open-mindedness here is completely subjective and poorly defined. You submit a cv and do an interview, and people decide if you're qualified, in their opinion. Just like most professional-level jobs.

[dimreepr]

Edit: apart from that you do as if I state that the legal system can do all of that. What you don't quite understand is that a correct (i.e. Just Proof) legal system is quite anarchistic in nature. You may do as you please as long as you don't unduly interfere with others.

 

And edit 2 what you also don't understand is that avoidance of the legal system is just the key of Just Proof as you correctly point out: the damage is done when you reach the courts.

 

Eh, you don't understand the Trias Politica.

 

 

 

Will you please stop telling me I don’t understand just because your opinion differs from mine.

I may not be an expert but assuming my ignorance because you are, is just bad form in a discussion, not only that but your repeated assertion of expertise simply casts doubt that your anything of the sort; experts aren’t infallible so it has no bearing on your correctness.

 

 

Eh, you don't understand the Trias Politica.

 

 

 

This from Wikipedia:

 

The separation of powers, often imprecisely used interchangeably with the trias politica principle, is a model for the governance of a state (or who controls the state). The model was first developed in ancient Greece and Rome. Under this model, the state is divided into branches, each with separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility so that the powers of one branch are not in conflict with the powers associated with the other branches. The typical division of branches is into a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary. It can be contrasted with the fusion of powers in a parliamentary system where the executive and legislature (and sometimes parts of the judiciary) are unified.

 

 

 

And my post.

 

The checks and balances that are provided by the judiciary can’t and should never control the direction of the system, it’s simply there to control corruption; it can’t dictate what are good or bad decisions, only time can decide that.

Edit/ It would be like a company that’s run by accountants, it may work but at the expense of the workers.

 

 

 

What am I missing?

[Endy0816]

The point I was trying to make about elections was that you could elect your judges instead.

 

 

I was called naive at the start of the thread.

 

You can have experience and yet still be naive in thinking your solution is a good one(many historical examples available).

 

 

You forget that "Just"of Just Proof is vested in democracies vested in international treaties that define what is Just.

 

People define what is Just. Treaties define what is Legal.

 

More to the point what is defined as legal changes over time, there's nothing to say that even the most heinous acts today won't again be legal in the future. You only consider them one way or another because of the society you live in.

 

 

What are you scared of? You state a dictatorship of un- Just Proof?

 

If your word is law you are dictating. It doesn't matter if you have the best intentions in the world.

 

 

[kristalris]

 

IOW open-mindedness here is completely subjective and poorly defined. You submit a cv and do an interview, and people decide if you're qualified, in their opinion. Just like most professional-level jobs.

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.

 

 

Will you please stop telling me I don’t understand just because your opinion differs from mine.

I may not be an expert but assuming my ignorance because you are, is just bad form in a discussion, not only that but your repeated assertion of expertise simply casts doubt that your anything of the sort; experts aren’t infallible so it has no bearing on your correctness.

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

The checks and balances that are provided by the judiciary can’t and should never control the direction of the system, it’s simply there to control corruption; it can’t dictate what are good or bad decisions, only time can decide that.

 

Edit/ It would be like a company that’s run by accountants, it may work but at the expense of the workers.

 

 

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.

 

The point I was trying to make about elections was that you could elect your judges instead.

 

 

You can have experience and yet still be naive in thinking your solution is a good one(many historical examples available).

 

 

People define what is Just. Treaties define what is Legal.

 

More to the point what is defined as legal changes over time, there's nothing to say that even the most heinous acts today won't again be legal in the future. You only consider them one way or another because of the society you live in.

 

 

If your word is law you are dictating. It doesn't matter if you have the best intentions in the world.

 

 

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?

Edited July 15, 2014 by kristalris

[swansont]

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.

Recording doesn't make it objective. I didn't say anything about whether its verifiable; that's a non sequitur.

 

 

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.

Stated, as usual, without any supporting evidence.

 

So taking current behavioral science as a fact Just Proof is scientifically based.

All we have is your hand-wavy assertion, though, as you have yet to back anything up.

[Endy0816]

@OP:

 

People who in the past instituted central planning were reasonably intelligent. They were still naive in thinking that they could outperform supply and demand and worse didn't consider what would occur due to their failure.

 

That is along the lines of the same error in thinking that you are making.

 

You are taking away judges from an already overworked system. You believe that Judges and Juries will welcome their advice. You are instituting a dubious metric to select these advisers. You at least imply that these judges will agree with your own views.

 

For these reasons people can reasonably say your view is naive.

 

I think I covered the legal versus just bit in the previous post. If not, I'll elaborate.

 

I saw and can only tell you that you are disagreeing with a vast number of people on the matter. The definitions disagree with you. What is legal may not be moral, which is part of the definition of just.

 

 

In your example, in either case you have two witnesses stating that Harry made remarks of a sexual nature to a 12 year old.

 

Could ethically and legally seek to find him guilty of verbal molestation.

 

[kristalris]

Recording doesn't make it objective. I didn't say anything about whether its verifiable; that's a non sequitur.

 

 

Stated, as usual, without any supporting evidence.

 

All we have is your hand-wavy assertion, though, as you have yet to back anything up.

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.

[swansont]

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.

 

 

Yes, the opposite of subjective is objective. Now please explain how videotaping makes something objective. I prefer chocolate to vanilla. "Chocolate is better than vanilla" is a subjective statement. I don't see how recording it will make it objective. Please enlighten me.

[kristalris]

@OP:

 

People who in the past instituted central planning were reasonably intelligent. They were still naive in thinking that they could outperform supply and demand and worse didn't consider what would occur due to their failure.

 

That is along the lines of the same error in thinking that you are making.

 

You are taking away judges from an already overworked system. You believe that Judges and Juries will welcome their advice. You are instituting a dubious metric to select these advisers. You at least imply that these judges will agree with your own views.

 

For these reasons people can reasonably say your view is naive.

 

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?

 

 

You are taking away judges from an already overworked system. You believe that Judges and Juries will welcome their advice. You are instituting a dubious metric to select these advisers. You at least imply that these judges will agree with your own views.

 

For these reasons people can reasonably say your view is naive.

 

 

I saw and can only tell you that you are disagreeing with a vast number of people on the matter. The definitions disagree with you. What is legal may not be moral, which is part of the definition of just.

 

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?

 

 

 

In your example, in either case you have two witnesses stating that Harry made remarks of a sexual nature to a 12 year old.

 

Could ethically and legally seek to find him guilty of verbal molestation.

 

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.

 

Yes, the opposite of subjective is objective. Now please explain how videotaping makes something objective. I prefer chocolate to vanilla. "Chocolate is better than vanilla" is a subjective statement. I don't see how recording it will make it objective. Please enlighten me.

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.

Edited July 16, 2014 by kristalris

[swansont]

But if you want to video tape it. It will provide more objectivity because verification and objectivity are closely interlinked.

 

I'm asking how this happens. How are they interlinked? Not just a restatement that this is true. Not a paragraph explaining something else. An actual explanation of this interlink and how videotaping makes a subjective observation objective.

[kristalris]

 

I'm asking how this happens. How are they interlinked? Not just a restatement that this is true. Not a paragraph explaining something else. An actual explanation of this interlink and how videotaping makes a subjective observation objective.

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.

Edited July 16, 2014 by kristalris

[Strange]

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."

 

But you are not making measurements (accurate or otherwise). You are just making a subjective judgement about someone. Showing others a video of you making a subjective judgement does not magically make it objective. What if several people tell you that your judgement was wrong and that they don't think the candidate is as open minded or "wise" as you think?

Edited July 16, 2014 by Strange

[Ophiolite]

Somewhere in the mish-mash of your thinking, evident in this post and others, you appear to be claiming possession of an open mind.

 

That being the case, why are you unable to entertain the possibility that your selection of a classification system of human personality is

a) Only one of many.

b) Probably outdated.

 

and therefore

c) not valid to use in justifying your argument.

 

 

And please note that Endy's "That is along the lines of the same error in thinking that you are making." is a loose analogy, intended to help the reader get a feel for the very broad category of error you have made, not a precise, one on one, identity. So you have not caught him out in an error in reasoning, rather you have bee tripped through an error in reading.

[kristalris]

 

But you are not making measurements (accurate or otherwise). You are just making a subjective judgement about someone. Showing others a video of you making a subjective judgement does not magically make it objective. What if several people tell you that your judgement was wrong and that they don't think the candidate is as open minded or "wise" as you think?

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.

[Strange]

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.

 

We measure things with instruments; with care this can be considered objective data.

 

Your subjective opinion of someone is not a measurement. (Or do you have an openmindedness-meter?) Different people will make different subjective judgements.

[kristalris]

Somewhere in the mish-mash of your thinking, evident in this post and others, you appear to be claiming possession of an open mind.

 

That being the case, why are you unable to entertain the possibility that your selection of a classification system of human personality is

a) Only one of many.

b) Probably outdated.

 

and therefore

c) not valid to use in justifying your argument.

 

 

And please note that Endy's "That is along the lines of the same error in thinking that you are making." is a loose analogy, intended to help the reader get a feel for the very broad category of error you have made, not a precise, one on one, identity. So you have not caught him out in an error in reasoning, rather you have bee tripped through an error in reading.

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.

 

We measure things with instruments; with care this can be considered objective data.

 

Your subjective opinion of someone is not a measurement. (Or do you have an openmindedness-meter?) Different people will make different subjective judgements.

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?

Edited July 16, 2014 by kristalris