Not exact matches
The central question becomes the very
character of the discipline itself: What modes of argumentation, which methods, what warrants, backings, evidence can
count for or
against a public statement by a physicist, a historian, a philosopher, a theologian?
(sorry, overshot the
character -
count...) For me, this sort of gaming is very interesting, as it sets up a counter
against the typical methodology of gaming (attack, kill, move on), even as it rewarded the player with advancement.
They surely reflect on the
character of their authors and must
count against the admissibility of any sworn evidence that they might submit to a court of law.
HELD The judge could remind the jury that the defendant had no previous convictions and say that, in the ordinary case, where there was no evidence of bad
character, a defendant of no previous convictions would have been entitled to a direction that the jury should consider that that
counted in his favour on the questions of both propensity and credibility; as it was, it was for the jury to consider which
counted with them more — the absence of previous convictions or the evidence of bad
character; and if the former, then they should take that into account in favour of the defendant, and if the latter, then they would be entitled to take that into account
against him (Lord Justice Rix at para 43).