Reply #52: As an attorney you are trained in logic [View All]

[mgr]

All of this centers on logic. Keep that at your center. As an attorney the key concept, from Scottish law, is the appeal to common sense. Science is organized common sense according to Thomas Huxley. Common sense is what underlies David Hume's radical empiricism and scientific materialism. Everything about the scientific method is built from this foundation. If something misaligns with your common sense, you have the right to reject it.

As I tried to explain before, the difference between legal proof and scientific proof is that circumstantial evidence to the scientist is not an acceptable criterion of proof, it is speculation. What you are describing are you attempts to persuade your father using circumstantial evidence, that in your opinion as an attorney is sufficiently damning, but being speculation he will not consider. (After all there is that story from Scottish jurisprudence regarding the corpus delicti)

Ask him to do as David Hume, take off the hat of the philosopher, and to then consider your argument. If Herrin shocked him, then give him what you consider the strongest evidence, given that you do not have a compass for evaluating scientific and mathematical explanations (in other words avoid these). Don't just reiterate with a more academic study, I think he got the gist.

I will tell you that the preponderance of circumstantial evidence is what makes me think fraud occurred. My scientific training and common sense balks at accepting the NEP exit polling though.

Good luck, Mike