Scientific Evidence in Jury Trials

I have noticed that scientific evidence introduced by the prosecution, which is countered by scientific proof provided by the defense, becomes a “wash” with the jury.  If there are competing scientific witnesses, the jury typically will disregard all the scientific evidence.  At that point, it adds little value to parade in more scientific experts than your opponent.  There is already reasonable doubt in the jury’s mind, and most jurors do not have a scientific mind that will further analyze the science.

This “hung jury” on the scientific evidence can occur even when there is overwhelming DNA evidence.  If the prosecution finds DNA samples at the scene of the crime, the defense can offer an alternative theory as to why the DNA was found.  For instance, the defense may argue that the DNA of the defendant was from a consensual sexual relationship.  Or the defense may have a scientist who shows that the DNA sample was contaminated.  It is a more difficult defense arguing that the police or a third party planted the defendant’s DNA sample, but it has been employed with success as in the OJ Simpson trial.

I have seen cases that attempt to match bite marks on the deceased’s breast with the defendant’s teeth fail as soon as the defense’s scientific expert shows that the bite marks do not match.  When jurors were questioned after the trial, they indicated that the scientific testimony regarding the bite marks was completely ignored in the deliberation room.  The jury reached their verdict based on something other than the science.

I was selected to sit on a medical malpractice trial before I attended law school, and I had the opportunity to see up front how a jury operates.  And each jury is different, but this jury completely ignored all the medical evidence provided during the lengthy trial.  The jurors did not understand it, so they dismissed it.  As long as both the plaintiff and the defendant offer some medical evidence to support their side, the jury will ignore all the medical evidence.

So how did this jury reach their decision?  Well, the foreman picked up a picture of the deceased that was taken about a week before he was seen by the physician and passed it around for everybody to see.  The plaintiff’s attorney had introduced the picture to enlist the sympathy of the jurors since the man looked sick and emaciated.  However, the foreman shook his head and announced, “Can’t you see?  The man was going to die no matter what the doctor did for him.  He was going to die anyway!”  And that’s how the jury made its decision for the defendant physician.

So what’s my point?  It’s simply that science will not convince the average person to believe in dark matter or dark energy or even a Creator.  The reason why the typical individual will believe in something is based on the emotion that carries the day.  This is why crowds are fickle.  One day, they may forgive your actions, but the next day, they may string you up.

The world is becoming more polarized, reducing the size of moderate, middle-of-the-road civilizations.  Extremists are always emotional non-thinkers.  That makes them very dangerous because you cannot reason with them.  And once the majority of world citizens are polarized into two major sides, both hating each other equally, and sometimes not knowing or caring why they hate each other.  Once the fire of hate starts feeding on that emotion, all rational thoughts will go up in smoke and the only thing that will matter will be to continue feeding the fire.  At that point, the only government that can control the emotional chaos in the world will be a totalitarian government.

A thinking person might wonder if this were the plan from day one of a small group of conspirators who created the polarized planet for a totalitarian world controlled by them.  Members of this group who want to take over the world may have sat in jury rooms themselves or perhaps they just understand human nature, which is to ignore science and reason if there is any conflict and rely on emotion to make decisions.

Is Our Universe Alive?

If you examine the interconnected galaxies within our universe, it looks like everything fits together neatly within an oval shell, perhaps held together by dark matter and dark energy.  If we attribute any life to this entity, it will have to be living inside a closed universe with borders.  Because if we have an open universe, headed toward the Big Freeze when stars run out of hydrogen and the lights go out, then there can be no life.

When everything within our universe is running in cycles and orbits, it would be strange indeed if the universe itself did not also have a cycle.  We can only speculate on the edges of this closed universe, but it may be restricted by time itself with our universe expanding and contracting as if moving forward in time and then backwards in time, creating a perpetual time and motion machine.

So, assuming that we live in a closed universe, is it alive?  Our universe appears to be a large cell with filaments stretching out and connecting the billions and billions of galaxies into superclusters and then into a universal fabric.  And there is a life cycle for stars and galaxies as they are born, grow, and die.  The universe could have a similar cycle moving back and forth between the Big Bang (birth) and the Big Crunch (death).  Of course this cycle may never stop.  And the law of conservation of matter and energy seems to prove this.  Even though matter and energy may be transformed to something else, these changes will go on for infinity since the total matter and energy within our universe can neither be created nor destroyed.

So, does the universe fit within any of the seven life processes?

(1) Movement.  Our universe may be like an accordion, moving back and forth as it expands and then contracts.  Or it may be moving in an orbit that is so huge, we cannot see the curvature.  But it certainly is moving as reflected by Hubble’s discovery of the red shift.  And it is increasing in speed.

(2) Respiration.  The universe may not have lungs like humans, but it does have a great variety of chemical reactions to produce energy, which most scientists would admit goes a long way to proving respiration.

(3) Sensitivity.  The universe seems to adapt as it apparently detects changes in the environment.  As an example, there is a balancing force so that if matter, like hydrogen, is expended through fusion within the stars; there is counterbalancing activity as energy is converted back to hydrogen, probably though fission of other elements in a supernova.

(4) Growth.  The universe has expanded from a tiny particle to the billions and billions of galaxies that we see today.

(5) Reproductive.  The universe cannot reproduce through sexual activity, but it may be able to pass along genetic information like DNA to all its plants and animals.  The universal DNA may be the reproductive aspect for all life within the universe.

(6) Excretion.  Even though matter and energy cannot be destroyed within the confines of the universe, it can be transformed into something else that is not a waste product.  As an example, when we die, our bodies decompose and the elements and energy from that body become valuable as they are recycled.

(7) Nutrition.  The universe does not eat and drink like we do, but it does convert matter into energy, which is the purpose of nutrition.  Fusion is an example of the universe converting matter into energy.

After examining these seven life processes, it seems possible, if not probable, that the universe is indeed alive and well.  But don’t ask me if it is an animal or a plant.  Quite frankly, it may be unicellular like bacteria.  But I’m comfortable right now just saying that our universe is more likely alive than not. 

What Is Reality?

When we ask “What is reality?”, are we referring to what you think reality is or what the average person thinks reality is?  In other words, are we asking about subjective reality or objective reality?  They certainly do not have to be the same.

When individual citizens do not perceive reality the same as the majority of citizens, they can be committed if they deviate from the normal, expected reality.  If a man believes his reality is that he is from the planet Zink, then others may want him locked up in a mental ward since his version of reality does not match that of the average person.

So can we ever know what reality is without first checking with the majority?  I think so.  We can start with quantum reality.  Quantum mechanics may be the strangest reality of all, yet it also may be the most important reality.

Quantum reality has a rule that is foreign to most of us:  everything can be in two places at the same time.  In the famous double-slit experiment, a photon is sent off toward two slots and it goes through both of them at the same time.  Instead of there being two lines on the other side of the two slits, there are three.  And to make things more confusing, if you place two observation points by the double-slits to examine this activity, the reality changes back to what you thought it should have been.  What does this mean?

One theory is that your observation of reality is not quantum reality.  Does the moon exist when you aren’t looking at it?  Does a falling tree make a noise in the forest if you are not there to hear it?  Your observations form your version of reality, but it probably is not ultimate reality.  So, the answer may be that your version of reality of the moon and the falling tree only exist when you observe them.  But quantum reality exists when you are not observing.  And quantum reality is more than likely the true reality.

Does that mean that your perception of reality is flawed?  No, I believe it just means that your reality serves you well at your level.  The hidden reality or quantum reality is the reality of the creation of our universe.  It appears to be beyond our understanding.  It might be a code like DNA, more like a mathematical formula, that was designed by the Creator.

I say that it appears to be beyond our understanding because even Einstein could not marry his theories with the quantum world.  Even today with some cosmologists indicating that they have come up with the theory of everything through the string theory, we still do not have all the answers and probably never will.

When scientists developed particle accelerators and colliders at the Fermilab and other locations to split protons down into the elementary particles, they discovered that there was a “particle zoo” that splintered out from the protons.  Even though they came up with 16 basic groups, including six quarks and six leptons, they still do not know what the elementary particles are and probably never will.  Why?  Perhaps it is because we cannot observe quantum reality.

As discussed earlier, we cannot observe the quantum world because observation, by that act alone, negates the reality of that world.   And if reality is created in the quantum world, then we can never observe it.  Our world of reality does not permit us to be in two places at the same time, but our Creator can be.  That is the definition of omnipresence.

It is interesting to think about a quantum computer where the digits 0 and 1 are used at the same time rather than separately like in a normal computer.  Programmers should consider creating a quantum computer that may lead us to a new world of computing.  Perhaps, the quantum computers will show us that our version of reality is like a three-dimensional hologram beamed into our reality from the quantum world, which is the true reality.