Gravity wheel of Mikhail Dmitriyev

[WilbyInebriated]

Of course, under science here I understand hard sciences which recognize only one truth about a phenomenon. Soft sciences such as jurisprudence, politics, sociology, psycology 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.

THEN SIMPLY ENUMERATE THE DIFFERENCES!
show me how and where a different type (a type that does not use inductive or deductive reasoning) of logic  is used in a court case... 

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

[Omnibus]

THEN SIMPLY ENUMERATE THE DIFFERENCES!
show me how and where a different type (a type that does not use inductive or deductive arguments) of logic  is used in a court case... 

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

We have to get into specifics to do that but usually deductive reasoning is discouraged in court while it may be acceptable scientifically, roughly speaking. Don't forget you have political correctness and so on and so forth and some topics, topics which scientifically would be discussed freely without a problem, are never the subject of discussion in nowadays politically correct soft sciences, let alone in court.

[WilbyInebriated]

We have to get into specifics to do that but usually deductive reasoning is discouraged in court while it may be acceptable scientifically, roughly speaking. Don't forget you have political correctness and so on and so forth and some topics, topics which scientifically would be discussed freely without a problem, are never the subject of discussion in nowadays politically correct soft sciences, let alone in court.

then quit stalling and let's get into the specifics. show me how and where a different type (a type that does not use inductive or deductive arguments) of logic is used in a court case (that would be what a cogent response would contain)... or continue with your strawman arguments... why do i have to ask you 4+ times everytime a simple response has been requested of you?

[Omnibus]

then quit stalling and let's get into the specifics. show me how and where a different type (a type that does not use inductive or deductive arguments) of logic is used in a court case... or continue with your strawman arguments... why do i have to ask you 4+ times to get a simple response out of you?

No, that's for you to figure out. I'm only giving you directions where to look.

EDIT: I meant inductive reasoning is discouraged in the soft sciences, that is reasoning which would project traits observed in individual entities onto a group. Generalizations of this sort are frowned upon in soft sciences. Not in hard sciences where it may be entirely legit.

[WilbyInebriated]

No, that's for you to figure out. I'm only giving you directions where to look.

EDIT: I meant inductive reasoning is discouraged in the soft sciences, that is reasoning which would project traits observed in individual entities onto a group. Generalizations of this sort are frowned upon in soft sciences. Not in hard sciences where it may be entirely legit.

i'll accept that as another tacit admission that you cannot provide a cogent reply... 

still keeping score chet? that's another loss for omni in case you lost track...