Truth is a funny thing.
Everyone thinks they’ve got it.
Scientists think they have it. Every religion thinks they have it. And, its a tad curious how psychedelic drugs cause their users to preach of new truths and perspectives.
For a hard core materialist, it won’t matter how believable an “experience” may be–its not real unless it can be scientifically verified. (Side Note: there’s some really odd complaints these days about the fact that falsification of a scientific theory isn’t as important as it used to be–but this is a story for another day)
Anyway, speaking of materialism, love is tough to prove. Even pain is tough to prove, doctors have to take your word for it. For some, it may be that mathematics contains more truth than the probabilistic sciences can deliver (for you statistics fans, isn’t it true that all of science can be reduced to probabilities?).
So, if there is such a thing as “truth” floating around out there, what are some reliable ways to find it?
In our court system, the jury decides what is true. We call them the “finders of fact”. We attorneys obtain a Juris Doctorate degree just to better navigate the filtration of what the jury can–or cannot–hear. the rule against presenting hearsay testimony, for example, keep rumors out of our quest for truth.
Florida’s criminal laws have lots of rules regarding confessions. Again, if we’re on a quest to discover the truth, what’s better than a confession, right? Well, it depends. If the confession comes after spending 10 hours with a few cops, can you really trust that confession? Our Supreme Court started laying down confession rules many years ago in Spano v. New York. 360 U.S. 315 (1959). Spano was suspected of murder but the cops couldn’t get him to talk, so they rounded up a close childhood friend, who then manipulated him into confessing. Yes, his confession was thrown out of court.
Surely, that sort of thing doesn’t happen today, does it? Continue Reading