Understanding the Murdaugh verdict. This is not half-baked psychology, but rather a rather new form of philosophy. Guilty as charged came down the verdict – and in record time for a six-week trial. How did they do it? You would think with such a lengthy trial it might take at minimum several days simply to review testimony, if only to confirm some agreement on the testimony presented. You might say they made an emotional response to their feelings. You could say having listened to all that testimony for weeks, their opinion about guilt or innocence evolved over time. You could even think the evidence was overwhelmingly complex. Thus, they really didn’t understand what they heard. In fact, all are probably correct. Yet, there seemed to be no analytical examination or even review of the facts of the case, being the verdict came so quickly. So what did they do? What they did is what philosophers have been studying for several decades. They used epistemic logic. That is, the jur
Random thoughts and used ideas