It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: rickymouse
Agreed. But I'm unclear about how you are relating that to the topic very specifically or generally.
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: BO XIAN
But it does matter. Two examples.... OJ and Casey Anthony. OJ got off because his lawyers generated reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury about evidence that may or may not have been planted by the LAPD to make OJ look guilty.
In Casey Anthony's case the states evidence was contrived to make her look guilty of killing her daughter. Except, as the defense attorney showed in every instance, the states evidence wasn't sufficient to convince the jury she had done anything to hurt her daughter, at all.
At Casey's trial, the jury ignored the emotional appeal by the state, finding her innocent by focusing on the forensics.
The only acceptable method for discovering the truth is to focus on the direct evidence. Emotions have nothing to do with it. How upset somebody is is irrelevant.
originally posted by: schuyler
As far as I'm concerned both people got away with murder here. But I fear we have drifted from the original topic. Box was originally talking about ways we know things, the Greek vs the Hebrew. It wasn't about court cases and lawyers. A lawyer's job is to get their client acquitted, whether they did it or not. It's not about "truth." It's about convincing just one person out of 12 on a jury that you are correct.
The Greek way of knowledge is to analyze and explore issues. Let's use an example. Medical science has written encyclopedias about human sexuality. Masters & Johnson, for example, hooked people up to sensors and measured heart beat, respiration, GSR, etc. while they were engaged in sexual activity and produced voluminous reports with charts, graphs, and figures that "explained" sex.
Compare that method of knowledge to actually experiencing the act. Who knows more about it? Who actually understands it? If you had never had sex and read Masters & Johnson's two volumes, memorized its contents, would you then proclaim yourself an expert in the field? I imagine you could study the subject academically for a lifetime, even get a PhD in it....
but never actually understand what it is and completely miss the point.
The academic is telling you all the nuances about heart rate, blood pressure, and respiration in infinite detail while the actual experiencer is saying, "My God! That was GREAT!"
Two different kinds of knowledge entirely. The scientist who insists that studying a subject in infinite detail is the only path to knowledge is missing a whole lot. That's the point.
As far as I'm concerned both people got away with murder here.
Box was originally talking about ways we know things, the Greek vs the Hebrew. It wasn't about court cases and lawyers. A lawyer's job is to get their client acquitted, whether they did it or not. It's not about "truth." It's about convincing just one person out of 12 on a jury that you are correct.
originally posted by: intrptr
Of course knowing isn't like lawyers trying to get their client off, the examination we make of whether seeing something is true or not should be carried out like it is in court, only deciding once we have done this.
Reactive attachment disorder is a rare but serious condition in which an infant or young child doesn't establish healthy attachments with parents or caregivers. Reactive attachment disorder may develop if the child's basic needs for comfort, affection and nurturing aren't met and loving, caring, stable attachments with others are not established.