John Kearney is a retired philosophy professor who taught at Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He has lived in Waterloo, Iowa for the past six years.
You are a juror in a murder trial, and you are tasked with deciding the innocence or guilt of defendant Robinson. To be convinced of Robinson’s guilt you want “sufficient evidence,” a reason or set of reasons for confidently believing that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If ten witnesses saw Robinson shoot Johnson and there are no witnesses who saw anything to the contrary, then there are strong reasons (“sufficient evidence”) for believing that Robinson shot Johnson.
But evidence can be “insufficient.” If five witnesses believe it was Robinson who shot Johnson, but five other witnesses believe it was someone who simply looks like Robinson, then the situation becomes problematic. If your verdict hinged solely on eyewitness testimony, you would have grounds for “reasonable doubt.” You would have “insufficient evidence” for finding Robinson guilty.
It is clearly better to have sufficient evidence for your beliefs than to be saddled with insufficient evidence or no evidence at all.
In his recent press conference following the tragic accident near Reagan National airport President Trump claimed “we do not know what led to this crash, but we have some very strong opinions and ideas, and I think we’ll probably state these opinions now.”
Continue Reading...