Y2K and the OJ trial are interestingly similar. Both have a mountain of evidence that you could could question (e.g., Furman and falling planes) along with a mountain of evidence that you simply cannot escape (e.g., blood on the Bronco and Italy). A clear thinking person would say that questionable data does not cancel out the compelling data. Look what happened in the OJ trial. Just some entertaining thoughts on the prevalence of such denial. I really appreciate the meaty posts (unlike this one!)

Dave

-- Dave Collum (aaa@aaa.com), May 27, 1999

Answers

Its meaty enough, Dave: its very important to recognize "the spirit of the times".

Also similar to "gun control". Supposed "the public" demands it.

Who really intellectually thinks it will help? Still, people want it so they can PRETEND they did something. Denial again. Also willing to trample the constitution in the pursuit of maintaining that denial.

y2K is so easy to deny --- for now.

-- Jon Johnson (narnia4@usa.net), May 27, 1999.

Dave, I think that you are on target, i have had the same kind of thought. I think the most common link has to do with the notion of "burden of proof".

Recall that in the (first) criminal trial, OJ was acquitted. In the (second) civil trial, he was found liable and fined heavily. Most people could not understand this seeming discrepency, but in actuality it is like comparing an apple with an orange (and I personally feel that both verdicts were correct, even though I think in fact that OJ did the crime of which he was accused).

In the criminal trial, the plain fact is that in spite of that "mountain of evidence", the defense managed to raise reasonable doubt on all the critical points. In a criminal trial, we place the burden of proof entirely on the prosecution, and additionally demand that the level of proof be "beyond a reasonable doubt".

In a civil trial, the burden of proof is effectively on both the plaintiff and defendant, and the level is one of "preponderance" rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.

I agree with you that this absolutely ties in with Y2K, you can see it when you look at how people justify their conclusions about Y2K. Some people (pollyannas) are convinced that unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there will be big problems, we must conclude that in fact everything will work out just fine. (This is essentially the heart of every argument that I have ever seen presented by Hoffmeister.)

Other folks (doomers) tend to take the same sort of view, but shift the burden of proof the opposite way -- i.e., if it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that things will work out just fine, then the assumption is that Y2K will be a huge disaster. (I'm one of those people.)

Most middle-of-the roaders tend to go for a "civil" approach, with both sides sharing the the burden of proof, and imposing the lesser standard in making decisions. At least, thats my impression.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), May 27, 1999.

Your post has given you away Dave. You are thinking of innocent and guilty, black and white - no middle ground. Even the lead in statement on Y2K Debunkers forum says Y2K is NOT going to be a non event!

There are a myriad ways for things to turn out from Y2K - from Gary Norths wildest nightmares to the absolutely no problems whatsoever of someone who utterly denies there is a problem. BUT THERE IS A MIDDLE GROUND. We CAN have some companies that don't finish all their Y2K work and survive. We CAN have companies fail and not bring down the entire structure of Western Civilization. And we can (and IMHO probably will) have power plants shut down over that holiday and still keep power on in 99% + of the US.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), May 27, 1999.

We CAN have companies fail and not bring down the entire structure of Western Civilization.

Paul,

I think the majority of people on this forum could agree with your statement. What makes me think you're not a Middle Grounder is that you don't even realize most people on here are not a 10 on the 1-10 scale.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), May 27, 1999.