Quote:
Originally Posted by Dngrsone
[...] And let us face it: in this modern day and age of "Fake News", "Flat Earths" and conspiracies around every corner, can we deny that there are people who will doggedly adhere to a belief even when there is an overwhelming pile of evidence proving otherwise?
|
And many of these have no obvious incentive to do so. But then try to imagine how it is in the confrontational situation we see in litigation. In this there are strong vested interests in seeing the fake news accepted; there are people playing legal games because they can, because that's what they're paid for, and perhaps because it would be unethical not to do the best they could for their client even if it means turning a blind eye to the suffering on the other side. With the effects of radiation being so new, it wasn't hard to find arguments. In such situations it becomes not only possible, but perhaps even obligatory, to present arguments against apparently convincing evidence (and remember that our friendly author has made it especially convincing for us); that's what they're there for.
For all that a confrontational legal system has many benefits, sometimes it really sucks!