If only somehow the government could determine what is true... </sarcasm>
When somebody is accused of a crime we just have to say "Guilty according to whom?" and let them go, because there's no way to know what's true. Sure the DNA says he murdered 3 children, but what are those scientists really after!
If only there were some organized system for appointed people with great track records to somehow listen to both sides of an argument and produce some sort of "judgment" at the end. But that's impossible, because only the TV box knows what's true. Alas...
> If only somehow the government could determine what is true...
You say this in relation to a criminal trial but two things:
1. The government can not determine guilt or innocence. It determines guilt beyond a reasonable doubt which is a distinction worth considering. There is an implicit admission of uncertainty and unknowability.
2. A panel of judges determining truth is a concept that has existed historically and in fiction. It plays out exactly as you'd expect it would. The powerful control the panel and suppress all those who dissent.
Surely you haven't thought this through. Do you really want the entirety of your life to be a criminal trial where a panel of judges (or citizens) determine what you ought to think and feel?
This section from my previous comment is relevant.
> Do you really want the entirety of your life to be a criminal trial where a panel of judges (or citizens) determine what you ought to think and feel?
I would argue against your point that "lying to the feds" is illegal. I think some cursory research into the subject would temper your opinion (at least to the point where you wouldn't consider it a "gotcha"). But I won't argue it here because it detracts from my larger point: the criminalization of all thought not arbitrated by government censors is a terrible idea and is fundamentally incompatible with the Bill of Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and common sense.
This is a red herring because the letter doesn't call for the legal system to determine what's true and false, it tries to pressure cable companies to drop cable channels that the ruling party doesn't like.
Regardless, the legal system does in fact make mistakes. We have the legal system because in some cases final decisions have to be made - who to imprison and who not - not because it's a perfect system. The fact that we need a system for a limited purpose doesn't imply that we should expand it's power indefinitely.
Does it? Enough labs have shown to be unreliable in handling evidence and being able to follow correct procedures. Remember back when the bite marks showed they were the murderer, or the skull shaped showed them to be a killed, or they didn't float so they must've been a witch?
In a way you're agreeing with me. You're pointing out how hard it is to find what's true, and the obvious answer to me seems - better science.
Have the DNA sent to 3 separate labs to test blindly against a control (blind tests are a huge component of the scientific method), require consensus from all 3 labs.
Modern scientific method also was the solution to "phrenology" (skull shape).
At least I assume you're not arguing all scientific evidence in court should be inadmissible?
> If only somehow the government could determine what is true... </sarcasm>
You got the definition backward, Truth is what the Government says it is, not the opposite, cf. historical truth set by law in France and other European countries. Records can always be altered to fit the current narrative.
When somebody is accused of a crime we just have to say "Guilty according to whom?" and let them go, because there's no way to know what's true. Sure the DNA says he murdered 3 children, but what are those scientists really after!
If only there were some organized system for appointed people with great track records to somehow listen to both sides of an argument and produce some sort of "judgment" at the end. But that's impossible, because only the TV box knows what's true. Alas...