Caveat: IANAL, I am ignorant of the law, however, I know a little about statistics and testing hypotheses. On one hand: Suppose we are confronted with making a decision based on limited data; most real world data is incomplete. Consider, for example, the charge that Ted murdered Jack Our legal system doesn’t require that jurors be omniscient. It only requires that jurors begin by assuming that Ted is Innocent until Proven Guilty . In more precise language, jurors should begin with the hypothesis that Ted is not guilty as opposed to the alternative that Ted is guilty . Jack is guilty is not a reasonable alternative hypothesis. We do not test whether Ted is innocent versus Ted is not innocent . If the reason for this is not immediately obvious, I hope it soon will be. The jurors examine the presented evidence, and ideally without bias, evaluate the accumulation of evidence and arguments. If the accumulated arguments and evidence presented by the prosecution persuades the jury
Things I don't understand: Consider freedom, a word that is a rallying cry for all kinds of actions that might suppress rather than engender freedom. What is freedom? How is it defined? If it means what you think it does, would freedom ever need a modifier like relative or absolute? Does the word mean the same thing to everyone? Robert Frost said "You have freedom when you're easy in your harness." My interpretation of what Frost means is that if the constraints of society and the limitations imposed on you by your body, beliefs, abilities, etc., do not rest too heavily on you, then you feel free. Can we demand freedom for ourselves and yet deny it to our fellows? The hand you feel lightly on your shoulder may be an intolerable burden crushing your brother or sister. If you think there is an easy answer, then you're reading the wrong post. Defining words is not always easy. If a definition is intended to inform someone, then that definition must