For example, if a jury of rational men and women decides that a defendant is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," they mean that the facts available to them, considered objectively, point conclusively toward guilt. In rare cases, of course, new evidence is subsequently discovered to exonerate the defendant. Should one automatically conclude that the original verdict was irrational, non-objective, illogical, or arbitrary? On the contrary, the terms "reasonable doubt" and "certainty" must depend on the context of knowledge of the judging individual. Any omniscient standard could not be applied to the world as we know it.
The logical incoherence of the notion of omniscient, context-free "knowledge" is further indicated by its pernicious role in arguments such as the famous Hangman's Paradox ().
).
Previous
