Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Derek Chauvin Trial

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I'd imagine Swig's objective background and conceptual framework of what's real and what's not, what's justice and what's not would make him a pretty good judge, or here a better juror than most. It's the framework that gives one a quite accurate "B.S. detector" about falsehoods and truths heard from witnesses and experts.

There's also the common fault by people of getting bogged down in "details", many irrelevant, and not integrating them, so losing sight of the bigger picture. Ultimately they are more prone to ¬backing their hunches¬ and making emotional assessments, or being influenced by glib lawyers, than holding the objective perspective in mind. 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This trial was televised. I watched every second of it. I have a better claim than the jury. One, the jury had to remember testimony, they weren't given transcripts, whereas I could watch the testimon

The trial started on Monday. Jerry Blackwell presented opening remarks for the prosecution's case. He argued that Derek Chauvin violated the police oath by using "excessive and unreasonable force" on

It should prove interesting to contrast Dr. Andrew Baker's eyewitness testimony of the cause of death with Dr. Michael Baden's and Dr. Alecia Wilson's later eyewitness testimony of the same. Dr.

Posted Images

7 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Any inductive method that operates through finding essentials doesn't even require all the details

If you don't know what the essential details are, then you need to pay attention to as many details as possible and logically relate them to your question. In this case it was: what caused Floyd's death? If your bias is that the police caused Floyd's death, then you're probably going to note everything that points to that conclusion, and you're missing the most important details that point to his actual cause of death. You're not thinking in essentials. You're thinking in biased essentials.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

It's the framework that gives one a quite accurate "B.S. detector" about falsehoods

That's true. When you rely on expert testimony, you need to pay attention to details that are relevant to their objectivity and honesty and trustworthiness, as well as those relevant to the charges in the case. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

then you need to pay attention to as many details as possible and logically relate them to your question.

In the next sentence I say that paying attention is enough as far as being able to decide which facts are important. You are saying that you need to pay attention. I'm saying the same thing. But note taking in and of itself does not indicate how well anybody is paying attention, nor does it allow people to pay attention after the fact. 

9 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

If your bias is that the police caused Floyd's death, then you're probably going to note everything that points to that conclusion

This is true, which is the importance of setting the frame of your thinking before information is presented.  This would precede everything. The value of the environment is that I think it sets your frame of thinking far better than anything else.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...