This was the crux of the defense's argument, challenging the certainty in scientific fact. But is her statement true?
shareI don't agree. Look at agrippa the skeptic's 5 tropes of doubt. All facts have to be based on some kind of evidence. The evidence would then have to be true as well. So essentially you have to keep finding proof for your proof and so on to infinity. Some mind boggling ideas there.
shareNo, two people can look at the same set of facts and come to different conclusions. Thus, different possibilities. In the movie case the court scene leads me to believe it was medical negligence the priest shouldn't have been on trial. In real life a priest et al were prosecuted and justly so.
shareI believe it is, facts are great to see, yet in this case it doesn't leave room for possibilities. The prosecution can counter argue, she was epileptic, and so forth. Unfortunately epileptic, can't contort their bodies the way Jennifer (Emily did) or speak in such high demonic voices. Laura Linney ending argument imo, was the best part of the movie. Laura can do any role, she's Superb!!!!!
"Young White Blonde Tall European Green eyes Girl born in the US that loves movies"
Yeah my signature lol