What is the most effective method of adjudicating the truth?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Ironic since this exactly what you just did in the other thread just a minute ago.

No, bringing up Trump's second amendment quote is a very clear parallel to Hillary's alleged assassination threat. For this, meanwhile, you clearly misinterpreted a more philosophical question for a topic on Hillary's emails (how the f*ck did you make that connection?), showing once again the darker side of populism.

Considering he was advocating for the NRA to lobby congress, nah. He was not.

Regardless, you are a Clinton supporter and you support a women who is openly racist, hoped Obama was going to be taken out, the most corrupt pos in history.

I get it, you dont like Trump cause he said mean things, so that means you vote for a true POS like Hillary?

Expertise for me. Although i find it difficult to determine how much of an expert.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Considering he was advocating for the NRA to lobby congress, nah. He was not.

Regardless, you are a Clinton supporter and you support a women who is openly racist, hoped Obama was going to be taken out, the most corrupt pos in history.

I get it, you dont like Trump cause he said mean things, so that means you vote for a true POS like Hillary?

What does any of this have to do with the thread?

It's like someone makes a topic about the new Star Wars trailer, and you call them an idiot for not talking about the NBA finals. What you say has literally no relationship with what other people are talking about, probably because the conversation is somewhat cognitively loaded.

Emails are the most effective method of adjudicating the truth

Originally posted by The Ellimist
The scientific method may be the means of investigation but you still need some sort of due process to determine whose conclusions we buy. If twenty scientists come up with four different evaluations of a theory relevant to policy, we need some methodology to determine who used said scientific method better. Science doesn't have some divine judge that does that for us.

But the scientific method itself strives to be devoid of that. The means of determining objective truth (or as close to it as current knowledge, understanding, and technology can get us) is a separate thing entirely with what people do with it's findings. If by "evaluations" you also mean "interpretation." Coming to a conclusion of what or how something is is different from determining what to do with that conclusion from this point on.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Your use of the word 'policy' there throws a monkey wrench in to everything. Policy (and politics) are the purview of people with feelings, opinions, and agendas. Subjective stuff, based on preference and emotion.

But the scientific method itself strives to be devoid of that. The means of determining objective truth (or as close to it as current knowledge, understanding, and technology can get us) is a separate thing entirely with what people do with it's findings. If by "evaluations" you also mean "interpretation." Coming to a conclusion of what or how something is is different from determining what to do with that conclusion from this point on.

Where does morality come into play?

Originally posted by Sin I AM
Where does mirslity2come into play?

Originally posted by Sin I AM
Where does morality come into play?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Your use of the word 'policy' there throws a monkey wrench in to everything. Policy (and politics) are the purview of people with feelings, opinions, and agendas. Subjective stuff, based on preference and emotion.

But the scientific method itself strives to be devoid of that. The means of determining objective truth (or as close to it as current knowledge, understanding, and technology can get us) is a separate thing entirely with what people do with it's findings. If by "evaluations" you also mean "interpretation." Coming to a conclusion of what or how something is is different from determining what to do with that conclusion from this point on.

I don't think we're on the same page here.

Say we want to know whether Bob killed Susan. This is a determination of fact - it's not a subjective question. How do we adjudicate this? You're basically saying "use the scientific method", which is true - but the other side of that question is who gets to determine whether the scientific method was adequately followed? And the answer in our current justice system is that we decided to use a jury of our peers, though that's debatably optimal.

Likewise, if the NFL wants to determine whether a receiver was out of bounds, "use instant replay" is the answer on one level; but the other level is who gets to review the instant replay?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
I don't think we're on the same page here.

Say we want to know whether Bob killed Susan. This is a determination of fact - it's not a subjective question. How do we adjudicate this? You're basically saying "use the scientific method", which is true - but the other side of that question is who gets to determine whether the scientific method was adequately followed? And the answer in our current justice system is that we decided to use a jury of our peers, though that's debatably optimal.

Likewise, if the NFL wants to determine whether a receiver was out of bounds, "use instant replay" is the answer on one level; but the other level is who gets to review the instant replay?

Everything that follows the first part is reliant on opinions, feelings values, etc. Very human, very subjective. Even before the science gets involved, there's a laundry list of additional humans to consider first.

The witnesses.
The associates.
The police.
The investigators.
The media.
The judge.
Another judge.
Lawyers.
Jurys.
Friends.
Family.

Picking who gets to decide what is a tough process from scratch, and even after millennia of various systems we still have trouble with it. We'll always have trouble with it. There is no way to come up with an objective truth to any scenario whose validity can't very easily be questioned due to interference by subjective humans. This quite quickly will descend into solipsistic madness.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Don't refer to yourself in the third person, the neighbours talk enough as it is.

IMO, absolutely nowhere.

Good answer

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
And there you have the joining of determining something's objective truth (as close to objective as we can get with what's at hand), and deciding on what to do with that.

I'm not asking that; I'm asking who gets to determine which objective truth has been reached, not the next step of what to do with it. Here, the question is which referee gets to decide whether the receiver was in-bounds, not what the implications of that are.

The question of which objective truth has been reached isn't a subjective one - it's imprecise and difficult to answer, but that doesn't mean it's subjective in kind.

Picking who gets to decide what is a tough process from scratch, and even after millennia of various systems we still have trouble with it. We'll always have trouble with it. There is no way to come up with an objective truth to any scenario whose validity can't very easily be questioned due to interference by subjective humans. This quite quickly will descend into solipsistic madness.

Well, that's the thread topic. But the lack of an adjudication method that's 100% accurate doesn't preclude the need to discuss which one we pick, nor does it preclude useful discussion; this can often be resolved empirically. For instance, the accuracy of polls vs. betting markets can be examined statistically; the accuracy of judge tribunals vs. juries can probably be data mined in one manner or another. We can look at whether popular opinion surveys are better at guessing certain facts than, say, expert consensus, etc. Saying that none of these are perfect has nothing to do with whether some are better than others.

We can't reach an objective truth about opinions.

Doesn't matter how accurate a poll is, etc. It's still just opinions.

All we can do is say someones opinion has been noted and move on.

You can sure say some methods are better than others, it won't change much though.

We have enough smug people here already, we sure as hell don't need people running around trying to claim their opinions are more valid than others.

Originally posted by Surtur
We can't reach an objective truth about opinions.

Doesn't matter how accurate a poll is, etc. It's still just opinions.

All we can do is say someones opinion has been noted and move on.

You can sure say some methods are better than others, it won't change much though.

We have enough smug people here already, we sure as hell don't need people running around trying to claim their opinions are more valid than others.

The point is to adjudicate on factual claims, not opinions.

So "who gets to decide which claims truly are factual", is the question you're asking?

What the most effective mechanism of coming to determinations of fact is. I mean this on a consensus level; we use tools like the scientific method, but that doesn't answer how we determine who has better adhered to it. They're two different questions.

It's not exactly an original topic, so I don't understand why there's so much confusion. There's been lots of debate over the comparative efficacy of betting markets vs. polling aggregates (politics), intuition-driven expert predictions vs. economic models (economics), juries vs. tribunals of judges (law); this is just a generalized version of those debates.

Yeah I think this is a problem with word choice. Per your OP, I would leave the word "truth" out of this entirely. A contentious word; it can denote absolute, empirical fact, or... "my truth v. your truth."

Maybe: Most effective method at adjudicating interpretations, or predictions, or rules. Etc. Either way, I'd say an absolutely correct method of doing so doesn't exist. Preferences and bias and whatnot.