Decision vs Conclusion

2005-12-30 13:10:00

Larry:

After thinking on this more, I have a question for you. You wrote:

"I would never be 100 percent sure as a juror because it is not logical."

To be 100 percent sure that your conclusion is correct means to me that all of the evidence logically leads to only one conclusion. It means that there is presently no credible evidence to the contrary to cast doubt. It has nothing to do with whether or not you will be open to new evidence in the future. A logical person is always open to new evidence.

But 100 percent certainty, however one defines that, should not be the issue.

You have defined "perfect logic" as:

"The highest possible logic, containing no ascertainable flaw in reasoning."

You have also written:

"God and man can both apply perfect logic and make many mistakes as they proceed toward the unknown."

If one has sufficient evidence of guilt, and if there is no credible evidence to the contrary, and if one uses the "highest possible logic, containing no ascertainable flaw in reasoning" to reach a guilty verdict, then you have used "perfect logic," have you not?

Yes, or no - is that an example of "perfect logic," and if not, why?

No it is not. Let me explain.

If one concludes there is a 100 percent chance that his decision to convict is correct then he is deceiving himself. You can never be 100 percent sure unless you get a revelation from God and then you must analyze the probability as to whether you contacted the true God and whether or not even he is 100% reliable.

Perfect logic always has to look at the probability of the premise being true and how this will effect his decision or conclusion.

As far as anything that uses judgment involving the senses goes, the question is not whether one is 100 percent sure, but how close you are to the 100 percent. If this assessment is not taken into consideration then there is an original flaw in the logic behind the premise. The reason there is a flaw is because all of us have the ability to realize that our conclusion could be wrong no matter how conclusive the evidence seems to be. If we do not use this piece of reason then we are not using the highest available logic.

The logical juror will realize that no matter what the evidence that is presented there is always a small possibility he could be deceived. Flawless logic has to take this into consideration

The statement I made was this:

"Perfect logic will never lead to a wrong conclusion."

In the case of the juror who is presented with powerful evidence that the person is guilty what is the illogical conclusion?

Wrong conclusion: Because the evidence is overwhelming I am 100 percent sure he is guilty.

This is a flawed conclusion because there is a chance he has been deceived.

What is the right conclusion: It is this: Because the evidence is overwhelming I am sure beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty, but there is always a small possibility I have been deceived.

This conclusion concerning his premise is 100 percent accurate and has no flaw.

Now he is starting without flaw let us see where it takes him.

Next he decides to convict. He does so because of the following logic based on the previous premise.

The law requires I find him guilty if I am sure beyond a reasonable doubt. I am not 100 percent sure, but since I am sure beyond a reasonable doubt I will convict.

But what if the guy turns out to be innocent? Doesn't this mean that perfect logic lead to a wrong conclusion?

No. Not at all.

He never concluded with 100 percent surety that the man was guilty. That which turned out to be true was within the perimeters of his logic and conclusion.

On the other hand, the man who was 100 percent sure DID reach a wrong conclusion and the new evidence indicating the man was innocent reveals this. This man is devastated because he reached a wrong conclusion; whereas the other man realizes he flawlessly followed the measure of the law and followed the highest he knew.

Part of the misunderstanding here may occur because some see a conclusion and a decision as the same thing. They are not.

Perfect logic may lead to a wrong decision, but not a wrong conclusion.

The juror made the wrong decision in convicting an innocent man but made the right conclusion that the evidence indicated he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but there was still a chance he was innocent.

Let's give another example.

You reach a fork in the road. One leads to your destination and the other takes you away from it.

Conclusion: I have a fifty-fifty chance of making the right decision.

Decision: I will take the road on the left.

Result: This was the wrong road taking him away from his destination.

Was his logic and conclusion flawless? Yes. His conclusion that he had a fifty-fifty chance of bring right was flawless.

Was his decision correct?

No.

My original premise in dispute was:

"Perfect logic will never lead to a wrong conclusion."

This is indeed true, but the most flawless of logic can lead to wrong decisions and this is where even the imperfection of the masters and Gods come into play.

In planning and constructing that which is new, perfect reasoning, logic and conclusions can be used and wrong decisions can still be made. This is why the earth as beautiful as it is, is still far from perfect. Perfect logic will discover the wrong decisions, factor them into the new conclusions and move ahead and progress until relative perfection has been reached.

Hope this helps to clarify.

We live in a Newtonian world of Einsteinian physics ruled by Frankenstein logic.  David Russell