You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #67: i apologize in advance for my latest post on "bridge out ahead" but... [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-17-05 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #64
67. i apologize in advance for my latest post on "bridge out ahead" but...
Edited on Wed Aug-17-05 09:03 PM by Land Shark
it stands for the proposition that the requirement of scientific truth doesn't necessarily apply.... at least in debates where we as a society are considering corrective actions. OK, but you say above that you don't require that.....

Now we can't directly violate scientific principles in our actions but on the other hand we don't have to prove to a scientific certainty the cause for our actions. IF the action is disclosure of data or even a new election under proper conditions, that IMHO need not be proven with anything approaching scientific standards. But again, you've clarified you don't advocate that position.

Let me say this however, by way of explaining why you are being treated the way you are (from your point of view) and why TIA (assuming he is stretching the case as you say) may be closer to "correct" from a certain point of view:

This is not just science, but politics and public policy. As I see nearly every day in law, an adversarial approach is taken by all parties whereby the truth if often found somewhere in the vast middle, but is not unknown even in the positions of the most extreme from time to time. Bottom line however is that a bit of exaggeration or a lot of it is PRESUMED in public actors, so if they start out with a modest claim that is rigorously true, that claim will also be scaled back in order to grant "proper" credit to the claims of other stakeholders (because we have no mechanism for ultimate truth determination).

so, if someone "representing" the election fraud-proof contingency doesn't push all available inferences in the favor of that side, it is dangerous to that point of view, because the public will cut it back to arrive at it's "truth"

OF COURSE there's danger too of not being treated seriously at all if one is "discovered" doing this spinning and stretching, yet the system almost requires it.

Problem is OTOH and everyone else, an honest academician can be DESTROYED on the stand for his very honesty, and politics is for these purposes too much like the courtroom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC