"Hey, you guys!"
Back 2 Square 1 has a new episode, 013 Dark-Lilith Visitation.
Show Notes:
While you guys won't necessarily notice the difference, though B2S1 tries to be posted by Monday. we recorded this show on Sunday and this explains a Tuesday posting. Dark-Lilith returns! ...well, for at least most of the episode before she leaves to help a friend. Glacier Wulf also jets at the same time, too. We bitch as usual about a bunch of things. There is a lot of "fuck" in this episode. We figure out what iTunes categories this show should be on and discuss Osyris' sexual orientation- again. Osyris also goes off on the debate about the Universal Healthcare legislation in Congress. Through the wisdom of the digital Doom Dice & List, we speak on XBOX-360, Steve Jobs' new iLiver 2.0, and other game related topics, we touch on the Rorschach Test/Wikipedia controversy, Osyris poorly explains "Cold Reading", the Shit List is visited, we tried to explode Kitty Kat's head, he give a shout out to the crew of "That Damn Red Boat", Osyris and Johnny-B compare bra sizes, we watch some Jimmy Justice and comment on "The Beer Summit", Buddy causes some minor mayhem, we talk about movies (Brüno, G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, District 9), Kirkland Signature Beer is brought up, under the topic Government, we discuss the Supreme Court and its role in America, then we role over into the ethics and production of podcasting in general and verses traditional radio (including how B2S1 is made and its content), we give you a preview of things to come on B2S1 and the logic the will effect future episodes, we give a shout out to Reto, long-lost B2S1 co-host likely still battling the Battle Cat, The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, Reasonable Doubts, and No Agenda are uses as a contrast to B2S1, after Johnny-B takes a piss, we move into the stalled housing developments around Auburn, Kent, and Covington, Wa. and have a trip down memory lane about our old high school Kentlake. There, of course, if a bunch of other material covered not mentioned in these notes so listen to the show to get all the juicy goodness!
Send your replies, rebukes, retorts, and/or rebuttals to: radioosyris@gmail.com
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
Burden of Proof
The concept of "burden of proof" is simple: where or to whom supporting evidence to a position or assertion is assigned. In the scientific method, this burden is placed upon those who make a claim. Why? Science cannot prove a negative; it can, however, prove trends (positives). It is also practical, since any observation, especially those that are extraordinary, can be accurate, incomplete, askew, or intentionally false. This same logic is applied to the US legal system, where the burden of proof is on the prosecution. In the UK, it is the opposite, where the defendant is required to prove their innocence. The logic for this, imo, is from a optimistic since of civility and honesty from people. Basically, a plaintiff is presumed not to speak of otherwise damaging incrimination without due cause. Since a pragmatic look at reality proves this idealized since of (British) honestly to be very much unreliable or outright false, or at least untypical, the system is thus inherently flawed. While the US version, even in pristine condition, is not perfect, it is inherently more logical and just (as defined by modern western ideals of the terms).
Why am I bringing this up? 'Cause some out there like to this the skeptics, dreaded debunkers that we are often accused of (and not necessarily without cause), should be the ones to prove certain claims as false. Srsly? I doubt those in America would like that logic used on them when in our court system. As for people in a UK-based system, I argue that the stance, especially in a scientific endeavor towards the reality of the situation, is lacking in logic, Still, how the court system in either country is set up has no baring on how the scientific methodology works. To this end, I do not understand why anyone who wants to be taken seriously by science would not want to have its evidence accepted by its methods. Considering the track record of the scientific method, minus the human factors for bias or idiocy, the only thing special pleading does is make your argument or claim look that much more like bullshit or half-baked.
Why am I bringing this up? 'Cause some out there like to this the skeptics, dreaded debunkers that we are often accused of (and not necessarily without cause), should be the ones to prove certain claims as false. Srsly? I doubt those in America would like that logic used on them when in our court system. As for people in a UK-based system, I argue that the stance, especially in a scientific endeavor towards the reality of the situation, is lacking in logic, Still, how the court system in either country is set up has no baring on how the scientific methodology works. To this end, I do not understand why anyone who wants to be taken seriously by science would not want to have its evidence accepted by its methods. Considering the track record of the scientific method, minus the human factors for bias or idiocy, the only thing special pleading does is make your argument or claim look that much more like bullshit or half-baked.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
