The Fetishisation of Evidence
The amusing thing when people fetishise evidence as the foundation for their entire world-view is that evidence very often is capable of multiple interpretations.
If evidence presented clear and unambiguous meanings, we wouldn’t need lawyers. Nor would we need appeals. Cross-examination would become a relatively mundane affair achievable by any lay person.
The only appeals that might exist, and the only scope for a lawyer’s continued existence, would be arguments on points of law.
But as it is, the lawyer is valued for his ability to present evidence in a particular way. It is the same reason the lawyer is often a despised figure. The vast majority of lawyers do not lie: their codes of ethics forbid it, and at any rate they do not need to. The dislike comes from the ability to present, in a compelling and credible manner, the evidence in a way that to an observer feels like it is completely different to their own interpretation.
We demand that both sides have lawyers because we know that a strong presentation of the evidence can be countered by an equally strong presentation of the same evidence another way. Moreover we never assume that such presentations reach anything approaching a proof. We simply choose a standard by which we may operate. The choosing of that standard, however, is fundamentally moral rather than epistemic.
