|
Post by gillianren on Aug 8, 2011 21:10:26 GMT -4
Lawyers do whatever is necessary to serve their clients, and that rarely involves a dispassionate search for the truth. Why is it more okay to badmouth lawyers than engineers? Lawyers do have a code of ethics to follow, not to mention the law.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Aug 8, 2011 21:27:04 GMT -4
From my years in college teaching I can say that Jarrah strikes me as a "gunner." These are the students who are utterly convinced they already know the material and spend the class time arguing with the teacher rather than learning what the class has to offer. If I were a college professor, I would normally take no pleasure at all in failing a student. But I could probably make a few exceptions.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Aug 8, 2011 21:54:09 GMT -4
Why is it more okay to badmouth lawyers than engineers? Lawyers do have a code of ethics to follow, not to mention the law. I'm not badmouthing lawyers, I'm factually describing what they do. The job of a lawyer is to further the legal interests of his clients. If he enters litigation, he does so with a desired outcome in mind that colors everything he does. While he may be bound by a code of ethics that prohibits certain activities such as outright fraud on the court, there's a huge amount of wiggle room within those boundaries. When he finds a precedent that benefits (or seems to benefit) his case, he will cite it and interpret any ambiguity in a way that benefits his client. He's not likely to call the court's attention to a precedent that clearly hurts his client. The same applies to the factual elements of the case. He tries to find reasons to exclude witnesses that are likely to hurt his client, and he works hard to get witnesses that will help his client. When he questions a witness, he formulates his questions to elicit answers that favor his client. (A basic rule of trial lawyering is to never ask a witness a question to which you do not already know the answer.) In sum, the primary tactic of any lawyer in an adversarial situation is to present a sufficient amount of half-truths to sway the jury or judge to render a verdict favorable to his client while adding to or attempting to subtract from the half-truths presented by opposing counsel. This is perfectly legitimate and expected; indeed any lawyer who did not do this would probably be disbarred for incompetence. But it's not what scientists do. Science is a process designed to arrive at the truth despite the imperfections of individual human beings such as prejudice, bias, honest error and even fraud. The process can be quick and direct, such as when the discovery is clear and easily and widely replicated, or it can be very slow and meandering. The job of a scientist (unless he's an expert witness in a courtroom) is not to persuade a group of people chosen at random off the street specifically for their ignorance of the subject matter to vote in a manner that benefits his client. His job is to determine the physical laws that govern the universe and to openly publish his discoveries so that his peers (who are chosen for their knowledge of the subject matter) can try to replicate his experiments and find any flaws. In fact, a good scientist is his own worst critic. He is always looking for the flaw in his own experiment or observations that would invalidate his hypothesis. He'll often expend a lot of effort at this before he publishes to reduce the chances of wasting his peers' time and resources. Can you imagine a lawyer operating this way? Of course not. I'm not knocking lawyers; if I ever need one I will certainly want him to operate in the manner I described. I'm simply saying that law and science are two very different professional fields that require very different modes of operation.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 8, 2011 23:43:48 GMT -4
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. A good prosecutor is interested in nothing but the truth, not least because the person being put on trial is also part of "the people," which is a prosecutor's client. A good prosecutor doesn't want to put the wrong person on trial.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Aug 9, 2011 0:58:14 GMT -4
That's fine for prosecutors, but defense attorneys are required to give their clients "an enthusiastic defense": Source
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 9, 2011 1:55:55 GMT -4
Certainly true, though it's also true that some defense attorneys will only take the case of people they are themselves convinced are innocent. Don't get me wrong--I am perfectly aware that a lot of attorneys put on vigorous defenses for clients they are aware are guilty. The thing is, I think it's ultimately good for the system, and I think they get too much grief from people because of that. I also think that lawyers are high on the list of "people it's still okay to make fun of." The simple fact is, Jarrah may be qualified at the obfuscating part of being a lawyer, but I don't think he'd be successful at the other things you need to get through law school.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Aug 9, 2011 4:50:33 GMT -4
Actually, I was thinking more of civil cases, since that's where the big money is these days. Unless you have (or had) O.J. Simpson for a client, there's not much money in criminal law.
I have absolutely no hope that the civil courts will ever be reformed. There so much money to be made through their abuse that those who do can (and will) spend whatever it takes to keep things just as they are.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Aug 9, 2011 6:53:15 GMT -4
It should also be said that you appear to be pigeon-holing all lawyers/solicitors as "trial lawyers" and ignoring the vast majority whose jobs involve navigating normal members of the community through the vast legal minefields of divorce, property purchase, wills and probate, etc..
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Aug 9, 2011 6:59:04 GMT -4
I'm appalled at what they no longer teach in computer science and engineering curricula, my two primary fields. It's not that they're pushing older topics out of the way in order to make room for new thought. It's that they're transforming the programs into something that's closer to vocational training that a science education. Clearly Jarrah White has an interest in science and technology, but it doesn't appear he has much aptitude for it. It would be a shame if he wasted the money and a spot in the university enrollment just to try to give his hoax claims more undeserved credibility. From my years in college teaching I can say that Jarrah strikes me as a "gunner." These are the students who are utterly convinced they already know the material and spend the class time arguing with the teacher rather than learning what the class has to offer. If that's the case, then my dismay extends not only to Jarrah but to those unfortunate enough to share a class with him. Frankly, I doubt that there is any truth to the claim that he is doing a BSc. He would *have* to know what would be likely to happen as soon as the other students and his lecturers discovered his 'prior work' - he would be a laughing stock. I couldn't imagine any lecturer putting up with him arguing any topic once aware of the tripe he has posted on youtube. This is simply another part of his game, imo. (BTW, I see his 'send me to the moon' campaign has, inexplicably, stalled at $376.93 - oh well, not far to go...)
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 9, 2011 7:34:02 GMT -4
Frankly, I doubt that there is any truth to the claim that he is doing a BSc. He would *have* to know what would be likely to happen as soon as the other students and his lecturers discovered his 'prior work' - he would be a laughing stock. I couldn't imagine any lecturer putting up with him arguing any topic once aware of the tripe he has posted on youtube. It occurred to me last night that there was a Facebook page dedicated to him. It was called 'Jars Infamous Jokes.' It has been removed, but it was set up by physics students from the University of Sydney. I think it played mock homage to Jarrah as it linked a few web articles that did not exactly place him in good light. Maybe he is known to the Sydney physics student community. Has he been making a pest of himself I wonder? Has he been sitting in on lectures, and considers it a route to his BSc? After all, he follows Ralph Rene, an eminent self taught physicist himself. He mmight be studying units at diploma level. That is a possibility. Having said this, I have never heard of astrophysics being taught at diploma level. The plot thickens.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 9, 2011 9:23:02 GMT -4
The job of a lawyer is to further the legal interests of his clients.... But it's not what scientists do. Science is a process designed to arrive at the truth despite the imperfections of individual human beings such as prejudice, bias, honest error and even fraud. The process can be quick and direct, such as when the discovery is clear and easily and widely replicated, or it can be very slow and meandering. On item I noticed about this comparison. You equate the job of an individual (an attorney) with a process of the work of many people that takes place over time (science). Individual scientist are as capable as attorneys or any of us of advocating for an unproven idea or representing a client who pays us. And for attempting to put the weight of science behind an such argument, even in cases where science is not involved. We can all likely cite an example of scientist that do work as guns for hire, say for a tobacco company. Or scientist that speak out on social issues with a pretense of expertise. So while we do see science as an ultimately self correcting process, it is a process that can and does leave collateral damage and unintended consequences along the path of arriving at better knowledge. It is the nature of human dealings.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 9, 2011 9:26:09 GMT -4
I find all this gossiping about Jarrah White to be a bit unseemly.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 9, 2011 10:48:03 GMT -4
Or scientist that speak out on social issues with a pretense of expertise. So while we do see science as an ultimately self correcting process, it is a process that can and does leave collateral damage and unintended consequences along the path of arriving at better knowledge. It is the nature of human dealings. Andrew Wakefield. Look at the damage he caused.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 9, 2011 11:08:33 GMT -4
I find all this gossiping about Jarrah White to be a bit unseemly. I take your point. I know that I lead the discussion sometimes, so I am sorry for being unseemly. His name can be like a red rag to a bull with me. I think the veiled threat to hunt me down has something to do with it, or maybe his bosom buddy accusing me of being a pedophile, or maybe the false DMCA claims against me, or publicly stating that my colleagues should place a restraining order against me. Of course, it was all done from the safety of his YouTube channel. It tends to irk. Maybe I should be more Jay-esque about it, but I'm a little bit abrasive in character when rattled. I think it has something to do with playing front row rugby union. I'm not one to back down easily. Seriously though, it does concern me that the moon hoax movement is attracting some real nuts; and one day someone will get hurt. It is becoming more about hate now than anything else. Spend some time looking at YouTube comments on the subject, and it really is quite alarming.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 9, 2011 13:45:04 GMT -4
The Jay-esque response is to ignore him precisely because he indulges in such deeply inappropriate activity such as false accusations. I don't feel like validating that behavior in any form, even if it may be interspersed with comments that would otherwise merit attention.
And yes, I too fear that conspiracism may one day give us another Milton Cooper. But even non-violent actions have drastic consequences. In today's contentious society, especially in the U.S., accusations alone do tremendous damage. I believe it's inappropriate for a debate over Apollo to invade too far into someone's personal or irrelevant professional life. If someone's trying to get you fired for disputing a hoax claim, that's inappropriate.
|
|