Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Court to decide if Jesus existed

Court to decide if Jesus existed

Well, here's a story to follow. While philosophers talk about standards of proof, there's no more practical standard of proof than the acceptance of a court of law.

While MP can see no outcome other than a compromise coming from this, it certainly is interesting to see it appearing in a non-U.S. court.



Anonymous Becky said...

It's interesting that "misleading the public" is a crime in Italy. Or at least something actionable, if not a crime exactly. I've never really heard about such an offence existing, except in relation to things like advertising.

You'd think it would be an amazingly difficult thing to enforce. Consider the internet!

1/27/2006 11:29:00 AM  
Blogger Lee said...

Consider politics!

1/31/2006 08:08:00 AM  
Blogger MelbournePhilosopher said...

Yes, it's a tough philosophical question whether it's reasonable to enforce politics on people or not.

I wonder what constitutes valid evidence for "misleading" the public. The old subtle distinction between knowingly lying and just not telling the truth...


2/01/2006 11:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Becky said...

It would almost have to be a strict liability offence. A strict liability offence is one where your mental state, ie, your subjective intention, is irrelevant. For example, not renewing your car registration. To be guilty of "misleading the public," maybe all that needs to happen is that the public is misled? That's it, I'm researching it. Right after I make a cup of tea.

2/06/2006 07:03:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home