Obama's Correct

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Rex E.

Is this the way you deal with your court cases? "We'll, my client assumes
what he 's saying will be correct in a year or so, so it has to be fact and therefore true, your honor"

We deal with expert witness in court cases. Experts deal with hypothetical questions and statistical probabilities - like what was being dealt with in the article. One might question the bases of the statistical conclusions, the premises or the methodology. But a difference in opinion does not lead to the conclusion that the proponent of that opinion is a liar. The poster's premise for citing to the article was to prove that Obama was a liar about that particular point. The article shows that the point was not a lie, but that there are reasons to challenge the methodology.

Yes it is necessary to make predictions and conclusions that are not absolutely verifiable, and to show that it was reasonable to rely on those conclusions. I have been involved in cases where union leaders had to make decisions about grievance processing based on their predictions about what an arbitrator would do. They have to decide whether it is worth it to spend several thousand dollars worth of union dues to pursue a grievance. If the prediction is that the grievance is unlikely to prevail, the decision is often to not pursue the grievance.

Can the officer say with absolute certainty what the arbitrator would have ruled? Of course not! But I am able to argue and present evidence to show that the union officer was reasonable in reaching his conclusion.

Regards,

D-Ray