CoulsdonUK
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,838
My point was that a majority verdict and being correct are potentially two different things. If the majority thinks that Amanda is guilty (or not guilty) does mean the verdict is correct.
What is correct? Take all of man's knowledge and calculate every single possibility. Then assign a score to the outcome. That is how a chess computer determines the correct move. The chess computer can easily beat a majority vote of people not using computers.
However, even in a chess calculation, there comes a time when there are twenty nearly equal moves. So what then? If a person's life is at stake you have to decide whether to let him (or her) go or destroy their lives when there is no clear decision.
I think that Amanda is clearly innocent. Whether or not the majority agrees is irrelevant to the truth.
I think that Amanda is clearly innocent. Whether or not the majority agrees is irrelevant to the truth.
Fair enough. Are you saying that the “majority” believe they are not innocent?