What is Evidence?

peilthetraveler

peilthetraveler

A policeman went to investigate a murder at the shooting range. As the policeman looked around, he saw bullet shells everywhere. He packaged up over 5,000 shells as evidence. When the doctor came he told the policeman that the man died of a heart attack and not a gunshot. "What? How can you possibly know that?" said the policeman.

"I am a doctor. I read this medical book so i know what I am talking about."

"I'm not going to believe you and your silly medical book. I have over 5,000 pieces of EVIDENCE. All these bullet shells and the fact that he is dead at a shooting range point to the probability that he was shot. How much evidence do you have, Doctor?"

"Just my medical knowledge that I got from this book." he said.

"Thats what I thought, now excuse me while I go look for a criminal." said the policeman.

That policeman is still out there today, gathering more and more "evidence" and will never stop until he catches his man. If he is an honest policeman, eventually he will go back to try to learn more about what the doctor told him and learn the truth. If he grows tired of searching, he may just blame the closest person that the "evidence" points to.
 
Forgive me, I am not able to see the the hidden message in this theoretical example.

1. Clearly there would be a gunshot wound in the victim if he was shot. It would be easy for the doctor and the policeman to determine if he was shot or not...

2. A doctor would never say "I have no evidence, only medical knowledge." The medical knowledge allows the doctor to to determine cause of death, which the doctor or some other expert witness would have to explain to a jury or what have you.
 
Quote from peilthetraveler:

A policeman went to investigate a murder at the shooting range. As the policeman looked around, he saw bullet shells everywhere. He packaged up over 5,000 shells as evidence. When the doctor came he told the policeman that the man died of a heart attack and not a gunshot. "What? How can you possibly know that?" said the policeman.

"I am a doctor. I read this medical book so i know what I am talking about."

"I'm not going to believe you and your silly medical book. I have over 5,000 pieces of EVIDENCE. All these bullet shells and the fact that he is dead at a shooting range point to the probability that he was shot. How much evidence do you have, Doctor?"

"Just my medical knowledge that I got from this book." he said.

"Thats what I thought, now excuse me while I go look for a criminal." said the policeman.

That policeman is still out there today, gathering more and more "evidence" and will never stop until he catches his man. If he is an honest policeman, eventually he will go back to try to learn more about what the doctor told him and learn the truth. If he grows tired of searching, he may just blame the closest person that the "evidence" points to.
More...

what you wrote is evidence of the truth of this statement:


"NOR MUST WE OVERLOOK THE PROBABILITY OF THE CONSTANT INCULCATION IN A BELIEF IN GOD ON THE MINDS OF CHILDREN PRODUCING SO STRONG AND PERHAPS AS INHERITED EFFECT ON THEIR BRAINS NOT YET FULLY DEVELOPED, THAT IT WOULD BE AS DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO THROW OFF THEIR BELIEF IN GOD, AS FOR A MONKEY TO THROW OFF ITS INSTINCTIVE FEAR AND HATRED OF A SNAKE."
Charles Darwin
 
Enter the District Attorney... (Dah dah DAHHHHH!!!)

He'll have to verify the competency of the doctor, the book that he learned from, and obtain a second opinion (coroner) to verify cause of death in order to have a sound case. Or even reject the case of murder of it is confirmed that the man died of a heart attack instead of a gunshot (or multiple gunshots as the case may be).

(Sort of sounds like peer review, doesn't it?)

Peil,

I know what you're trying to drive at. But your story is not very realistic. It omits standard protocols in such events. All of which require at least some rudimentary verification.

Your argument via this story has been reduced to the absurd. So much so, that even persons not knowing about S.O.P. in a potential murder case can see right through its holes.
 
Quote from PatternRec:

Enter the District Attorney... (Dah dah DAHHHHH!!!)

He'll have to verify the competency of the doctor, the book that he learned from, and obtain a second opinion (coroner) to verify cause of death in order to have a sound case. Or even reject the case of murder of it is confirmed that the man died of a heart attack instead of a gunshot (or multiple gunshots as the case may be).

(Sort of sounds like peer review, doesn't it?)

Peil,

I know what you're trying to drive at. But your story is not very realistic. It omits standard protocols in such events. All of which require at least some rudimentary verification.

Your argument via this story has been reduced to the absurd. So much so, that even persons not knowing about S.O.P. in a potential murder case can see right through its holes.
More...

Hmmm....ok. Its the year 1755 and the doctor & policeman are in an eastern country. THERE...is it fixed now? :D
 
Quote from peilthetraveler:

Hmmm....ok. Its the year 1755 and the doctor & policeman are in an eastern country. THERE...is it fixed now? :D
More...

Believe it or not, yes that does make a difference. (Except now you will have to change the name of doctor to wizard, police officer to constable, and bullet casings to pottery shards or arrowheads. )

BTW, weren't they still burning people at the stake back then with only as much as a mere accusation of heresy, witchcraft, buggery, etc?

Thank... well yeah why not? Thank God we require a higher degree of proof these days. :D
 
As usual...the whole point of the story was missed. So I want to break it down more simple.

99% of the world thinks the word "evidence" means proof. What i was getting at was that evidence is only evidence UNTIL it is proof.


Somehow, I think that also is going to fly right by many of you though :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top