Gravity wheel of Mikhail Dmitriyev

[WilbyInebriated]

Not so. The logic in court proceedings here is specific and it is geared to the fact that the goal is not to find the objective truth but to convince a group of peers. That logic differs from the logic used in scientific debates where the goal is solely the objective truth with no societal interferences. I told you that already but you're not hearing it that's why I have to repeat it.

please enumerate the differences...

[Omnibus]

you are confusing 'rules of judgement' or 'rules of sentencing' with rules of logic. logic is logic. the fact that juries have sentencing guidelines is not a substantiation that a different logic is being used.

again tu stultus es... q.e.d

No, that's wrong. The whole procedure is specific, not only parts of it. Otherwise it will not be self consistent. The very  way the evidence is presented to the jury, including the underlying logic is specific, differing from the presentation of scientific evidence in a scientific debate and the way conclusions are drawn from that evidence. These are completely different activities. Science is objective and, like I said, unlike jurisprudence has no societal elements in it (true science, of course).

[WilbyInebriated]

No, that's wrong. The whole procedure is specific, not only parts of it. Otherwise it will not be self consistent. The very  way the evidence is presented to the jury, including the underlying logic is specific, differing from the presentation of scientific evidence in a scientific debate and the way conclusions are drawn from that evidence. These are completely different activities. Science is objective and, like I said, unlike jurisprudence has no societal elements in it (true science, of course).

then simply enumerate the differences... or continue with your current strawman fallacy... 

again, tu stultus es... q.e.d.

[Omnibus]

Of course, under science here I understand hard sciences which recognize only one truth about a phenomenon. Soft sciences such as jurisprudence, politics, sociology, psychology etc. have a very diffuse understanding of truth and the logic for establishing it is different from the logic in hard sciences where truth is the dictator. In soft sciences the different social groups have their own truths about a single phenomenon and these truths are allowed to coexist otherwise the society will fall apart. In hard sciences, on the contrary, truth is unitary and it underlies a totalitarian system par excellence. There's no democracy in hard sciences.

[Omnibus]

The closest of the soft sciences to the hard sciences is the continental European law while the American jurisprudence differs quite a bit, as explained.