Ernest Schaal wrote:

> The problem with talking about the "truth" is that it is not something that
> be readily discovered. Just look at how long we have been looking for the
> "truth" about disease and yet we still don't fully know the mechanism of the
> common cold and how to prevent it. Constantly, in science, people are making
> new interpretations of reality, based on new discoveries and new data.

Yes, they keep on trying, and may encounter obstacles to medical advances, just
like researchers keeps trying when coming up with new surveillance and
investigation technologies that people also do not wish to accept.

> The use of the word "truth" makes it sound like you think you fully
> understand what that "truth" is.

What do you propose the truth is, in a criminal case? What 12 amateurs who may have
had no prior knowledge and only hear what is ruled admissible, and what should be
convincing arguments from both sides, happen to agree upon? Why is this better than
knowing what actually happened?

> According to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, we can never truly know.

--
 "I'm on top of the world right now, because everyone's going to know that I can
shove more than three burgers in my mouth!"