I’m not a lawyer so I won’t claim deep understanding of legal procedure but I have heard of the phrase. I don’t understand the relevance, I’m not trying to speak to a courtroom context here, although I can understand if you feel that my post is a bit too glib and paints with too broad a brush, ignoring special cases. My intention was more to address (in a humorous manner) a pattern I see in random conversations or inforemal debates as opposed to contexts where there are actual “rules of evidence” that are established to apply. In fact, I think part of the pattern that I am trying to speak to is that people sometimes import concepts from places like courtrooms and try to apply them where they aren’t appropriate. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” being a common example. In normal conversation you shouldn’t have to follow rules of “admitting” evidence to the conversation in my view, and invoking legal concepts often just masks the underlying disagreement.
I’m not a lawyer so I won’t claim deep understanding of legal procedure but I have heard of the phrase. I don’t understand the relevance, I’m not trying to speak to a courtroom context here, although I can understand if you feel that my post is a bit too glib and paints with too broad a brush, ignoring special cases. My intention was more to address (in a humorous manner) a pattern I see in random conversations or inforemal debates as opposed to contexts where there are actual “rules of evidence” that are established to apply. In fact, I think part of the pattern that I am trying to speak to is that people sometimes import concepts from places like courtrooms and try to apply them where they aren’t appropriate. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” being a common example. In normal conversation you shouldn’t have to follow rules of “admitting” evidence to the conversation in my view, and invoking legal concepts often just masks the underlying disagreement.