“WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY FALSIFICATION? (IN COURT)”
—“I don’t think I understand what you mean by “falsification.” I doubt you mean it in the Popperian sense because it is entirely possible to put questions before the judiciary that pray for verification, rather than falsification. And falsification does not just happen on the basis of substantive “operational” concerns but also on matters of legal or administrative procedure.”— Duke Newcomb (awesome alias)
DEFINITION OF FALSIFICATION
No amount of justification or confirmation provides us with satisfaction of demand for infallibility given the question at hand. Only due diligence by attempted falsification of identity, internal consistency, operational possibility, rational choice, reciprocity, external correspondence, completeness, full accounting, parsimony, and coherence.
The jury and judge do not find a matter of truth or falsehood, but sufficient falsification of alternatives to render a judgement of under reasonable doubt.
In law, “Proof” does not exist because existential reality is not constructed axiomatically and not closed – so we only use the term by analogy. Instead, we are providing a theory (argument) and evidence (external correspondence) that alternative explanations (theories) are unreasonable (fail to satisfy the demand for consistency, possibility, rationality, correspondence, full accounting, and parsimony.
This confusion is possible because of the inarticulate vocabulary of legal jargon that is non-operational, and not constructed from the tests of demonstrated interest, or court insured property constructed by demonstrated interest, or reciprocity, or argued under testimonial truth. This is what P-law provides: disambiguation and operationalization, and therefore scientifically stated, internally consistent, law (rules of jurisprudence).
RESULTS OF FALSIFICATION
Restating your claim in scientific prose: It is possible to test a theory by putting a question before the judiciary and determining whether or not they falsify it. All that it tells us is that it survived falsification or not. Nothing else.
WHAT ABOUT PROCEDURE?
Legal and administrative procedure have nothing to do with truth or falsehood, but with regulation. Whether those regulations affect truth, falsehood, or reciprocity, irreciprocity is a matter of convenience (cost) for the court and nothing to do with truth and reciprocity.
The Natural Law of Reciprocity > A constitution for operational under it > a judiciary for adjudicating differences under it > Procedures (regulations) demanded by the court (often arbitrary, often pragmatic, but not always) < regulations (enforcement of, proceduralization of, legislation and command) < Legislation (contract or command) < Command.
A SMART GUY GETS IT RIGHT AWAY
—“Ah. It is not the proposition before the trier of fact that is falsified, it is the alternatives. And they are not falsified in the sense of having their falsehood established. They are falsified in the sense of being inferior in their explanatory power of the facts of the matter before deliberation to the preferred theory of the case. By falsification, you mean the process of reasoning to the best (most apparently reasonable) legal theory on the basis of the best evidence. Got it.”— Duke Newcomb
Impressive. Uncommon. Rare case of fully grasping it. Nice work.
The Darwinian survival of theories of causality in the competitive market for infallibility of juridical decisions given the harm caused and restitution demanded.
( FYI: Daniel Roland Anderson: Another one with potential? )