NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cadfan" data-source="post: 4914147" data-attributes="member: 40961">The problem here is that the burden proof isn't philosphical certainty, its whether people believe your alternate explanation. Basically, to advance those arguments the defendants would have to walk into the courtroom, tell the judge or jury that they didn't upload the documents, that someone must have stolen them from their computers and uploaded them, and then the judge or jury would have to believe them as opposed to believing the alternate hypothesis- that they did it. Imagine this- I say you stole a hundred bucks from my wallet. You say you didn't. The only evidence is my testimony, and yours. I can't even prove I had the hundred bucks before hand, except by my statement saying that I did. That's enough evidence to get you criminally convicted, beyond a reasonable doubt, and put in jail. If a jury believes me and not you, of course. And if they don't believe me, well, you can steal my hundred dollars and nothing happens to you. That may seem shocking, but... its been the basis of the legal system as long as its existed. Most crimes just haven't got proof that would hold up to scientific or philosophical rigor. Instead we rely on a jury to listen to everything, and just sort of figure things out as best they can. Criminal fines tend to be very small in comparison to civil damages. Monetary fines aren't really the point of the criminal system, which is more about loss of freedom as punishment. Its just how the system is built- civil costs you money, criminal costs you time.</blockquote>

Verification