What’s wrong here? For each of the following, explain the mistake that makes it untrue.
1. A statement is a tautology if it is true. Tautology is a statement only if the words have a mean for the way they are worded. 2. A statement that is self-contradictory is seldom true. Self-contradictory arre not true, can 't be a statment can 't prove a self-contradictoy is true. 3. We can tell if a claim is true or false by looking at what it means. A claim can 't be distingusged as true or flse per self prestive. Claims have tbe proven alone with the truth meaning documentation to back the claim up to show the truth or falstive.
…show more content…
If a claim cannot be confirmed by an independent investigation, then it must be false. A claim don 't have to be a false claim if an independent invegestion can confirm facts. Could not be enough informatation or missing party to collberate information to a prove claim. 5. If an independent investigation produces evidence that is consistent with a given claim, then the claim must be true. Normally with proven information a claim can be true but because information was provided don 't mean it the truth of what happen, alway another side of the story. Saying if two parties involed. 6. Experts have the rightful authority to impose their beliefs on other people. Defintely not. We are entileed to believe what we want , aganist the law 1st amendment. 7. Relativism is the highest stage of cognitive development college students can achieve. Maybe for some college stutents. But real as it gets when it actually happen , nothing cognitive. It not knoweledge because process and understaning it because the person it happening to ot have
Jami Bull Mr. Mollenger Forensics Science 23 February 2018 Power of Proof The Innocence Project is a non-profit legal organization that helps people prove their innocence when wrongfully convicted through new DNA testing. 70% of eyewitnesses misidentified and 45% involved misapplication of forensic science. (“DNA Exonerations in the United States.”)
According to Daubert, the “smell of death” evidence would have had to meet the criteria in order for it to be used as reliable evidence. First, the evidence needs to be tested to see if the expert can receive the same result each time, it needs to be done.
This claim then was distributed as proof that he was an alien and the line between facts and fiction
As supported in R. v. Vetrovec, it is said that juries must be told, and trial judges must remember, that it is dangerous to rely upon the unsupported evidence of an accomplice or other unsavoury witness, without more. You should look for some type of confirming evidence, although this is not a legal requirement. Courts look for inconsistencies between witnesses. Minor differences such as times, distances, speed, have a limited effect on reliability and can enhance, rather than detract from the credibility of a witness as too much similarity can suggest collusion between
Today, modern standards require the burden of proof be brought forth by the plaintiff, or prosecution in criminal cases. This means that the accused no longer has to prove they did not commit the crime, but the prosecution has to prove that all the evidence proves the accused did in fact commit the crime in question. Circumstantial evidence is not enough, but physical evidence, or forensic evidence is now required in modern courts for a conviction. Additionally, the modern standard when considering evidence, and for conviction is “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
4. Axiom: a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true. The axiom will be disproved, if I can provide evidence. 5. Dulcet:
Since the time decision about Daubert was made, later decisions of the supreme court have increased the Daubert’s application to all expert fields, not only in those which is technically scientific. The impact of Daubert, though, is not restricted to federal courts for many stated have also accepted the Daubert test for acceptability of testimony. The Daubert implication also extended towards scientific forensic anthropology. Daubert has offered many applications in federal courts.
If I know that P, then I know that I am not in the matrix. 2. I do not know that I am not in the matrix. 3.
Proof can be direct or circumstantial, and the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,
Admissibility of Evidence April Smolkowicz The Judicial System 3300 Georgia Gwinnett College Introduction It has been over seventy years since the United States federal court systems adapted the general acceptance standard Frye test. Established with Frye v. United States 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir.1923) whereas the scientific theory of evidence had to establish and be accepted within the relevant scientific community. This was until a broader examination took place in 1975 with the enactment of the Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 702, with expert testimony that was based on their specialized expertise of the subject matter and of their personal qualifications.
(Luco, Week 3 Notes, p.9) Cultural Relativism is simply a combination of the following three theses: 1. The only criterion of moral truth or falsehood is the moral code of a cultural group. 2. A moral claim is true, relative to a culture’s moral code, if and only if the claim is generally accepted within that cultural
It carries better. {Stephen Leacock, Literary Lapses} False in one thing, false in everything Just because something isn't a lie does not mean that it isn't deceptive. A liar knows that he is a liar, but one who speaks mere portions of truth in order to deceive is a craftsman of destruction {Criss Jami} {Honour. / Virtue. / Straight path.
Other truths include facts such as, “There are 12 inches in 1 foot.” Then there are truths that people connect to their identity: race, gender, career, etc. People connect the word “truth” to all these subjects. When focusing on the actual definition of truth this doesn’t seem entirely the connect usage of the word.
These two statements cannot both be true. If we are both talking about the weather in Lubbock and it is raining in Lubbock then it can be said that my friends statement contradicts my statement. The truth and the lie can then both be determined. The noncontradiction principle is highly related to the existence of God. There is either a God or there is no God, but both ideas cannot be true.