The Stack Overflow podcast is back! Listen to an interview with our new CEO.
2 While question is active, change links to HTTPS for privacy
source | link

I just want to add a very recent articlearticle in the Guardian

... it would be unwise to assume that everyone condemned to death is guilty of a terrible crime: a new report from the Marshall Project explains how, only a decade ago, Texas executed a man who was almost certainly innocent – and did so in a way that makes it enormously unlikely that he was the only innocent man to die in the state’s high-volume execution chambers.

and raise the question: What means "clearly shown" with respect to "evidence"?

"Clear" is a relative term - clear for whom or from what kind of view - and furthermore is there no and can never be a status of absolute clearness! We live in a continuous world, where is always uncertainty involved - no matter what you do. Therefore, to apply such a black-and-white term, you can just reduce that uncertainty (in the eyes of the subject) to a level where the subject perceives something as clear based on his reality.

It is unclear to me what the subject involved here is. Is it clear in the eyes of

  • the commonality (in the sense of more than half of the statistical mean of the population - the average citizen)?
  • the average politician high enough to speak in the name of the government (yes, I do distinct here)?
  • the judge?
  • the jury?

I tend to believe that subject here is the judge but I also perceive it as a polemic.

I just want to add a very recent article in the Guardian

... it would be unwise to assume that everyone condemned to death is guilty of a terrible crime: a new report from the Marshall Project explains how, only a decade ago, Texas executed a man who was almost certainly innocent – and did so in a way that makes it enormously unlikely that he was the only innocent man to die in the state’s high-volume execution chambers.

and raise the question: What means "clearly shown" with respect to "evidence"?

"Clear" is a relative term - clear for whom or from what kind of view - and furthermore is there no and can never be a status of absolute clearness! We live in a continuous world, where is always uncertainty involved - no matter what you do. Therefore, to apply such a black-and-white term, you can just reduce that uncertainty (in the eyes of the subject) to a level where the subject perceives something as clear based on his reality.

It is unclear to me what the subject involved here is. Is it clear in the eyes of

  • the commonality (in the sense of more than half of the statistical mean of the population - the average citizen)?
  • the average politician high enough to speak in the name of the government (yes, I do distinct here)?
  • the judge?
  • the jury?

I tend to believe that subject here is the judge but I also perceive it as a polemic.

I just want to add a very recent article in the Guardian

... it would be unwise to assume that everyone condemned to death is guilty of a terrible crime: a new report from the Marshall Project explains how, only a decade ago, Texas executed a man who was almost certainly innocent – and did so in a way that makes it enormously unlikely that he was the only innocent man to die in the state’s high-volume execution chambers.

and raise the question: What means "clearly shown" with respect to "evidence"?

"Clear" is a relative term - clear for whom or from what kind of view - and furthermore is there no and can never be a status of absolute clearness! We live in a continuous world, where is always uncertainty involved - no matter what you do. Therefore, to apply such a black-and-white term, you can just reduce that uncertainty (in the eyes of the subject) to a level where the subject perceives something as clear based on his reality.

It is unclear to me what the subject involved here is. Is it clear in the eyes of

  • the commonality (in the sense of more than half of the statistical mean of the population - the average citizen)?
  • the average politician high enough to speak in the name of the government (yes, I do distinct here)?
  • the judge?
  • the jury?

I tend to believe that subject here is the judge but I also perceive it as a polemic.

1
source | link

I just want to add a very recent article in the Guardian

... it would be unwise to assume that everyone condemned to death is guilty of a terrible crime: a new report from the Marshall Project explains how, only a decade ago, Texas executed a man who was almost certainly innocent – and did so in a way that makes it enormously unlikely that he was the only innocent man to die in the state’s high-volume execution chambers.

and raise the question: What means "clearly shown" with respect to "evidence"?

"Clear" is a relative term - clear for whom or from what kind of view - and furthermore is there no and can never be a status of absolute clearness! We live in a continuous world, where is always uncertainty involved - no matter what you do. Therefore, to apply such a black-and-white term, you can just reduce that uncertainty (in the eyes of the subject) to a level where the subject perceives something as clear based on his reality.

It is unclear to me what the subject involved here is. Is it clear in the eyes of

  • the commonality (in the sense of more than half of the statistical mean of the population - the average citizen)?
  • the average politician high enough to speak in the name of the government (yes, I do distinct here)?
  • the judge?
  • the jury?

I tend to believe that subject here is the judge but I also perceive it as a polemic.