SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Dr. John Plunkett died this week. He spent nearly 20 years arguing in court against bad forensic science, for which he was maliciously prosecuted and received false ethics complaints. Through his efforts, 300 innocent people were exonerated. (This sentence from fark.com)
Like a lot of other doctors, child welfare advocates and forensic specialists, John Plunkett at first bought into the theory of Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS). It's a convenient diagnosis for prosecutors, in that it provides a cause of death (violent shaking), a culprit (whoever was last with the child before death) and even intent (prosecutors often argue that the violent, extended shaking establishes mens rea.) But in the late 1990s, Plunkett — a forensic pathologist in Minnesota — began to have doubts about the diagnosis. The same year his study was published, Plunkett testified in the trial of Lisa Stickney, a licensed day care worker in Oregon. Thanks in large part to Plunkett's testimony, Stickney was acquitted. District Attorney Michael Dugan responded with something unprecedented — it criminally charged an expert witness over testimony he had given in court. Today, the scientific consensus on SBS has since shifted significantly in Plunkett's direction.
[...] According to the National Registry of Exonerations, 16 SBS convictions have been overturned. Plunkett's obituary puts the figure at 300, and claims that he participated in 50 of those cases. I'm not sure of the source for that figure, and it's the first I've seen of it. But whatever the number, Plunkett deserves credit for being among the first to sound the alarm about wrongful SBS convictions. His study was the first step toward those exonerations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2018, @02:43PM
I'm reasonablly happy with the first half of the post (re TFA), but the second is… disorganized.
I guess I should have picked one ridiculous argument from the left and one from the right to avoid people thinking a post about poor arguments was a post about conclusions I disagree with. I'm far more irritated by poor arguments for positions I agree with though, because those who disagree will come away thinking that's among the best arguments we have to offer, and correctly conclude that their position is the best supported by the arguments they're aware of. A kind of "If you want to harm your opponent, spread specious propaganda in their name and then debunk it for easy converts." sentiment, but without implying such sophistry is acceptable.
A good argument in favor of many LGBT issues* is "It violates nobodies rights." And that suffices for a liberal† who doesn't have an unusual idea of what rights people have. As for arguing with a non-liberal, the emphasis should probably be on liberalism vs whatever-they-are rather than the flavor-of-the-week political issue because even if you win, you have to do it over again pro cetera. It might seem careless to argue what seems impossible to change at the expense of a real issue that impacts people, but permitting a large non-liberal faction to form will fuck you far harder long term.
What I meant to draw attention to with the reddit aside is the primacy of conclusions over arguments in certain groups. People don't define themselves by the arguments they'll accept‡ but the positions they hold on issues§. The answer to my drunken self's confusion is obvious: those aren't their arguments, they're just circlejerking and reveling in people agreeing with them because it feels good‖. The illusory truth effect probably is what leads them to think that statements-of-positions/gotchas-that-are-really-just-a-slightly-convoluted-statements-of-position-pretending-to-argumentation are arguments, because after they read them they become more convinced and hey, arguments are what convince one of a position right? And these sure (superficially) look like arguments.
As for the end of the post, I suppose I'm looking for political philosophy. Any recommendations for an unread beginner, ideally overviews of the main positions held today rather than the classics which first made those arguments or overviews of historically important positions?
* Notably excluding compelled service/hiring, which can fuck right off.
† Not in the USAian sense.
‡ e.g.: ones showing a lack of rights violations; ones showing an increase to utility; ones showing the situation will make me and mine happier; &c.
§ These are only the same under logical omniscience, not reality.
‖ I've certainly been guilty of this, so I know at least one person has done so with that motivation, even if not realized at the time, and I doubt I'm unique in this.