Absolutely not, the proof can be anyone, it's the method that counts.Janic wrote:unfortunately this type of hierarchy depends on the selection of the participants in this hierarchy. The case of the current covid shows precisely the defect of this armor.
They are therefore not a matter of individual proclamations. In the words of the philosopher Karl Popper, they come from "the friendly hostile cooperation of the citizens of the knowledge community". Any scientific result first passes under the caudine forks of the "peers", giving rise to interpretations, discussions, even to Homeric shouts. Of course, this does not protect from possible more or less persistent errors, but it is thanks to this introductory test that science can finally claim to have made speak, in a more or less clear way, a part of the real ...
The sciences are big machines to pulverize the prejudices and to contradict the spontaneous interpretations which we make of the phenomena which surround us https://www.marianne.net/societe/etienn ... entifiques
as long as the method is suitable for the subject, not for anything else. The method of butcher's experts is inadequate for judging the value of heart surgery, even if the two cut corners. and if in addition these experts "work" for lobbies as judge and party, this beautiful principle breaks the figure on its own!izentrop »08 / 02 / 21, 15: 08Absolutely not, the proof can be anyone, it's the method that counts.Janic wrote:
unfortunately this type of hierarchy depends on the selection of the participants in this hierarchy. The case of the current covid shows precisely the defect of this armor.
Justice rarely has a full connection with scientific evidence. Should examples to see?Macro wrote:And yet ... With simple testimonies and words from recognized experts .... We can send you to tole for the rest of your life ....
Justice does not judge on scientific evidence since it does not have the competence, but on the arguments of the opposing parties. However, after its various legal actions, with its many very expensive lawyers paid and experienced in all delaying tactics, Monsanto '(for example) lost despite everything! And the victim effectively recognized as such, despite all the efforts of the firm to deny !izentrop »08 / 02 / 21, 16: 47Justice rarely has a full connection with scientific evidence. Should examples to see?Macro wrote: And yet ... With simple testimonies and words of recognized experts .... We can send you in tole for the rest of your life ....
To say the least, there are no scientific truths, but verifiable and possibly measurable facts.An expert has some "scientific truths" in his chosen field, but is not infallible.
Janic wrote:... Justice does not judge on scientific evidence since it does not have the competence ...
Of course not! Its role is not to decide on the words of experts (but which ones?) Which can be a charge or a defense, but on the reasons which lead the members of a society to adopt such and such behavior, rather than another, in relation to the laws [*] of this same company (often different from one country to another) otherwise we fall into the courts of exceptions whose history still bears indelible marks.Janic wrote:
... Justice does not judge on scientific evidence since it does not have the competence ...
Of course, yes, it is common knowledge: it calls on experts, scientific police, doctors, psychologists ...
Back to "Science and Technology"
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 13 guests
