Female pilot suing former employer after being told she's 'too short' to fly; Gloria Allred represen

[SkyDog58]

I would have reacted in the same way as the plaintiff's lawyer and not taken the chance with your friend.

So you wouldn’t want anyone who works in an industry and who has intimate knowledge of how it works to be on a jury in a case that involves that industry? You’d rather have folks without any sort of knowledge and who would be more prone to just believe whichever lawyer was slicker? The more convincing actor is still just an actor. Just as many on here see through the BS and inaccuracies in the news media and movies when it comes to how aviation is reported on and portrayed, an aviation savvy juror can see through the BS a lawyer or their paid “expert” might spew. That doesn’t mean the juror is biased.

Knowledge does not equal bias.

 

[Everskyward]

So you wouldn’t want anyone who works in an industry and who has intimate knowledge of how it works to be on a jury in a case that involves that industry? You’d rather have folks without any sort of knowledge and who would be more prone to just believe whichever lawyer was slicker? The more convincing actor is still just an actor. Just as many on here see through the BS and inaccuracies in the news media and movies when it comes to how aviation is reported on and portrayed, an aviation savvy juror can see through the BS a lawyer or their paid “expert” might spew. That doesn’t mean the juror is biased.

Knowledge does not equal bias.

You know your friend. The lawyer didn’t. Look at all the bias we see on POA about aviation issues from pilots. Including from me.

 

[Lachlan]

We will likely never see all the evidence. So trying to treat this like a court is a bit silly IMO

Well, that’s ironic, considering Post #216. Here, try this pry bar to help with that foot logged in your pie hole.

 

[Salty]

Well, that’s ironic, considering Post #216. Here, try this pry bar to help with that foot logged in your pie hole.

I think you're confused.

The two statements are consistent, the only real difference is one is a bit stronger than the other. They pretty much say exactly the same thing.

We will likely never see all the evidence. So trying to treat this like a court is a bit silly IMO

Even in court we will never have "all the evidence". There's no point in talking about anything if you require all evidence before beginning the discussion.

 

[iamtheari]

Knowledge does not equal bias.

The problem is that actual knowledge is a myth. Knowledge is nothing but a form of bias, and a very dangerous form of bias because it is almost impossible for a person to overcome. Even the most die-hard KKK member can probably be convinced that a specific, individual black person is not all bad in certain circumstances. But it is a very rare human who is capable of acknowledging that a fact that he was certain he knew was incorrect.

The history of the jury system as it struggled to deal with the bias of knowledge is interesting. In the beginning, people would bring their disputes to a judge, who would decide the case. But the he-said/she-said of that system made the truth impossible to determine, so a jury of people who had first-hand knowledge of what had happened would be brought in to give their verdict.

The problem with that is that, knowledge being nothing but what a person has been convinced of based on his perceptions, it is universal that different perceptions of the same event lead to different knowledge of the truth of it. So the parties to a dispute would be allowed to present witness testimony to help the jurors flesh out their knowledge and ensure that their decisions did not reflect only their own perceptions.

The problem with that is that the parties and judge would have no way to know what knowledge the jurors were bringing to court, which makes it impossible for an appellate court fairly to review the jury's decision. Appellate courts need to know what information the verdict was based on, so they can decide if the verdict was based on an inaccurate statement of the law, on unreliable evidence that should never have been received in court, or on insufficient evidence to factually support the verdict. Jurors with prior knowledge of the facts make that review impossible since there is no way to know if the verdict was based on something presented in court or something perceived out of court.

Thus, the jury system evolved from selecting jurors who had personal knowledge of the facts of the case to excluding them and selecting a jury of people who have no preconceived idea of what happened. And that is the system that we inherited from jolly old England.

Just as many on here see through the BS and inaccuracies in the news media and movies when it comes to how aviation is reported on and portrayed, an aviation savvy juror can see through the BS a lawyer or their paid “expert” might spew.

In my experience, it is much more common for a judge to be misled by a flashy expert witness than for a jury of people without preconceived notions of the case to be misled by a flashy lawyer. At least with a jury, you have a group of people who are going to debate their decision before issuing it, and unless you are really unlucky there will be at least one minority viewpoint rather than simply an echo chamber. With a judge making the decision, there is no debate and it is all too common for the judge to make up his mind about what happened and then the case is over, since we are stuck with the incurable bias of "knowledge."

You know your friend. The lawyer didn’t. Look at all the bias we see on POA about aviation issues from pilots. Including from me.

Or just read the threads on POA about plane crashes, where we as a group scoff at the "aviation experts" that the news media is always quoting. No lawyer wants to take the risk of having that kind of wildcard on the jury. A little bit of knowledge is a scary, dangerous thing. And that is what is on full display in this thread. Here we have a bunch of people saying things that are nearly all true or almost true, but arguing vociferously against each other because they are talking about things on which their knowledge is incomplete or inapplicable.

 

[Cooter]

The problem is that actual knowledge is a myth. Knowledge is nothing but a form of bias, and a very dangerous form of bias because it is almost impossible for a person to overcome.

There’s a lot wrong here. Maybe you’re speaking strictly in terms of evaluating competing truth claims as relayed by others. But knowledge is certainly more than bias, and knowledge isn’t myth.

 

[Palmpilot]

As an engineer, I tend to view knowledge (or at least what we think we know) as an approximation.

 

[iamtheari]

There’s a lot wrong here. Maybe you’re speaking strictly in terms of evaluating competing truth claims as relayed by others. But knowledge is certainly more than bias, and knowledge isn’t myth.

How do you know that?

The fact that there is such a thing as "competing truth claims as relayed by others" makes the point. Knowledge is not absolute and it is not the antithesis of bias. People know things that simply aren't true every day. Even honest, intelligent, cautiously perceptive people know things that are untrue.

I'll give you that knowledge is a human response to stimuli and every fact that a person knows started out as a combination of external stimuli. That is certainly more than a bias, as you say. But the output of a person's knowledge devolves to a biased view of the truth as filtered by that person's limited perception of those stimuli, his synthesis of other knowledge (possibly inaccurate) with those stimuli, his human instinct against reconsidering what he believes he knows, his imperfect ability to recall his knowledge, and finally his imperfect ability to communicate what he recalls of his knowledge.

Philosophers, cognitive scientists, and marital counselors have been trying to understand and solve what I am simplifying (but not, in any practical sense, over-simplifying) as the knowledge bias in various ways since time immemorial with, as far as I can tell, no forward progress.

But what do I know? This is just my knowledge formed from observing people, and I am deeply biased that the things I know are accurate reflections of reality. If someone has an explanation of knowledge that leaves bias out of the equation, I will do my best to listen, understand, and reconsider, even though that last step is really hard for us humans.

 

[Cooter]

How do you know that?

I know that without it, your account is nothing more than myth and therefore irrelevant.

There is a difference in saying that knowledge is a myth, and complete 100% accurate knowledge isn’t possible. Those aren’t the only two alternatives, yet both of your post seem to assume they are.

If there isn’t some common reference, then your words are truly meaningless. But we know that isn’t really the case, so there must be a reality that we both interact with and have some understanding of. The philosophical problem isn’t with acknowledging that, it’s with accounting for it. Getting into the metaphysical beyond what I’ve said may not be welcome here (I’ve been sidelined several times), but I’m happy to demonstrate where you may be following a logical deduction but one that begins with the wrong premise.

I'll give you that knowledge is a human response to stimuli and every fact that a person knows started out as a combination of external stimuli.

So you reject a priori knowledge?

 

[Lachlan]

I think you're confused.

The two statements are consistent, the only real difference is one is a bit stronger than the other. They pretty much say exactly the same thing.

Oh, so you’re saying nothing should ever go to court. Or are you saying we should form strong opinions without having all the evidence?

 

[Salty]

Oh, so you’re saying nothing should ever go to court. Or are you saying we should form strong opinions without having all the evidence?

Nope. I didn’t say either of those. I’m going to stick with “you’re confused”

 

[EdFred]

So the sum of 2.0 and 2.0 is not 4.0 ?

Are you saying this can't be known?

 

[iamtheari]

There is a difference in saying that knowledge is a myth, and complete 100% accurate knowledge isn’t possible. Those aren’t the only two alternatives, yet both of your post seem to assume they are.

In the context of jury selection, which is where we started from a few posts ago, I am equating the two. For all practical purposes, a potential juror's "knowledge" is a dangerous myth because complete 100% accurate knowledge is, while possible, extremely unlikely. And that knowledge will absolutely form the basis of a bias regarding the facts of the specific case that the juror will be asked to decide.

This thread proves the point well. Many of the 250+ posts in this thread have discussed the court system. It is clear that everyone writing about the court system has some knowledge of it. It is equally clear that few of the things written here about the court system have much to do with the decision of the specific civil case that we are talking about.

If there isn’t some common reference, then your words are truly meaningless. But we know that isn’t really the case, so there must be a reality that we both interact with and have some understanding of. The philosophical problem isn’t with acknowledging that, it’s with accounting for it. Getting into the metaphysical beyond what I’ve said may not be welcome here (I’ve been sidelined several times), but I’m happy to demonstrate where you may be following a logical deduction but one that begins with the wrong premise.

I'm not saying that there is no objective, shared reality. (See below regarding the appropriate forum for deep philosophical discussions.) I'm saying that a person's knowledge of reality is always going to drive a bias against perceptions of reality that differ from his own, and therefore I am concluding that knowledge = bias. That bias is in addition to the biases inherent in how we gain knowledge, how we remember it, and how we communicate it to others.

The only premise from which I am arguing is that the human race as a species is really bad at reconsidering the things that we store in our minds as "knowledge." In other words, once a person knows something, it is really hard to get him to know something different even if the thing he knows just ain't so. I don't think you disagree with that premise but, if you do, I am jealous because it probably means you deal with wrong-headed people much less frequently than I do, or at least you get to choose to walk away from them instead of your day job being based entirely around their existence.

So you reject a priori knowledge?

I don't know enough to accept or reject that deep of a philosophical theory. I do, however, know enough to reject having a philosophical discussion in this thread rather than over a beer with music too loud to hear each other. You can choose the bar, as long as the music is good.

 

[Cooter]

In the context of jury selection, which is where we started from a few posts ago, I am equating the two. For all practical purposes, a potential juror's "knowledge" is a dangerous myth because complete 100% accurate knowledge is, while possible, extremely unlikely. And that knowledge will absolutely form the basis of a bias regarding the facts of the specific case that the juror will be asked to decide.

This thread proves the point well. Many of the 250+ posts in this thread have discussed the court system. It is clear that everyone writing about the court system has some knowledge of it. It is equally clear that few of the things written here about the court system have much to do with the decision of the specific civil case that we are talking about.


I'm not saying that there is no objective, shared reality. (See below regarding the appropriate forum for deep philosophical discussions.) I'm saying that a person's knowledge of reality is always going to drive a bias against perceptions of reality that differ from his own, and therefore I am concluding that knowledge = bias. That bias is in addition to the biases inherent in how we gain knowledge, how we remember it, and how we communicate it to others.

The only premise from which I am arguing is that the human race as a species is really bad at reconsidering the things that we store in our minds as "knowledge." In other words, once a person knows something, it is really hard to get him to know something different even if the thing he knows just ain't so. I don't think you disagree with that premise but, if you do, I am jealous because it probably means you deal with wrong-headed people much less frequently than I do, or at least you get to choose to walk away from them instead of your day job being based entirely around their existence.


I don't know enough to accept or reject that deep of a philosophical theory. I do, however, know enough to reject having a philosophical discussion in this thread rather than over a beer with music too loud to hear each other. You can choose the bar, as long as the music is good.

There’s merit to what you’re saying as long as you meant to limit it to that context. Your statement I initially quoted suggested a meaning beyond jury selection, which is why I included the caveat in my response. But I took the

“How do you know that ?”

as a philosophical parry, and an invitation to engage on that level.

 

[iamtheari]

There’s merit to what you’re saying as long as you meant to limit it to that context. Your statement I initially quoted suggested a meaning beyond jury selection, which is why I included the caveat in my response. But I took the ["How do you know that?"] as a philosophical parry, and an invitation to engage on that level.

I absolutely do argue that what I'm calling the knowledge bias extends far beyond the context of jury selection. But at some point, that argument crosses first the line from that context (which is on-topic to the post I was responding to) to other practical contexts, then the line from practical to philosophical (which is, I would argue, off-topic anywhere that doesn't serve a decent IPA). So you were mostly right in your understanding of the 'how do you know that?' quip. I meant to communicate that I understand your philosophical post and would rather have that discussion over a beer elsewhere, since I'm at work right now, hopped up on coffee and trying to survive the practical effects of the observations that lend empirical support to my argument.

 

[bflynn]

So the sum of 2.0 and 2.0 is not 4.0 ?

Are you saying this can't be known?

It is approximately 4.0, give or take the margin of error. For example, your values might have been 2.04 + 2.04, which would have rounded to 2.0 + 2.0, but for which the unrounded addition would be 4.08, which of course rounds to 4.1

Data is just data and there is always a degree of inaccuracy in it, sometimes an unknown amount. The truth is never revealed by data, only something that is close to it.

 

[Sluggo63]

So you wouldn’t want anyone who works in an industry and who has intimate knowledge of how it works to be on a jury in a case that involves that industry? You’d rather have folks without any sort of knowledge and who would be more prone to just believe whichever lawyer was slicker? The more convincing actor is still just an actor. Just as many on here see through the BS and inaccuracies in the news media and movies when it comes to how aviation is reported on and portrayed, an aviation savvy juror can see through the BS a lawyer or their paid “expert” might spew. That doesn’t mean the juror is biased.

Knowledge does not equal bias.

God forbid someone goes on trial for doing a straight-in at an uncontrolled field. We pick 12 POA pilots who have intimate knowledge of how aviation works as jurors. I'm sure that jury will in in and out of the jury room in no time flat, since they all are unbiased and have knowledge and are aviation savvy.

 

[Cooter]

It is approximately 4.0, give or take the margin of error. For example, your values might have been 2.04 + 2.04, which would have rounded to 2.0 + 2.0, but for which the unrounded addition would be 4.08, which of course rounds to 4.1

Data is just data and there is always a degree of inaccuracy in it, sometimes an unknown amount. The truth is never revealed by data, only something that is close to it.

His point is that some things are knowable without having first experienced it. 2+2 can be known to = 4, without ever having seen two objects added together to prove it.

 

[bflynn]

Theoretically, the answer is known. But when viewing data, you're dealing with approximations of the truth. Legal witnesses are the approximations without a known degree of error, they are not not the theory. Given sufficient error, the value of 2.0 could really be 3.0, so the actual answer is 6,

Yes, if you perfectly knew the facts, we would not need juries. Everyone would know the truth of the matter and it would be indisputable and we wouldn't even need a trial. But when dealing with people, we get approximations, sometimes to the point that the truth fails.

 

[Palmpilot]

His point is that some things are knowable without having first experienced it. 2+2 can be known to = 4, without ever having seen two objects added together to prove it.

Yep. Mathematics is one of the few fields where things can be definitively proven. The inaccuracy of data, of course, is a different matter.​

 

[EdFred]

Theoretically, the answer is known. But when viewing data, you're dealing with approximations of the truth. Legal witnesses are the approximations without a known degree of error, they are not not the theory. Given sufficient error, the value of 2.0 could really be 3.0, so the actual answer is 6,

Yes, if you perfectly knew the facts, we would not need juries. Everyone would know the truth of the matter and it would be indisputable and we wouldn't even need a trial. But when dealing with people, we get approximations, sometimes to the point that the truth fails.

The 2.0 was measured with a calibrated wrench to be dead on balls accurate. Plus with significant figures, the 100ths would never have been included, and 2.0 could NEVER be 3.0. It's 4.0

I specifically included the .0 to combat the inane argument that 2 is somehow 3.

 

[jumper]

Maybe she is too short, maybe it's a safety issue, maybe she should suck it up and move on. Why are there so many looking to sue over anything. I was told that I was too short to be in law enforcement, so I moved on

 

[hindsight2020]

I was told that I was too short to be in law enforcement, so I moved on

...if the answer is flying, that would be the mother of all ironies LOL.

Welcome to POA!

 

[MetalCloud]

Maybe she is too short, maybe it's a safety issue, maybe she should suck it up and move on. Why are there so many looking to sue over anything. I was told that I was too short to be in law enforcement, so I moved on

Well because sadly most people don't share that sentiment. They play victim and don't take any initiative for themselves. And the world owes them something.

 

[Kristin]

Standards of evidence and typical PoA pecker measuring aside, that press conference is theater, and Gloria Allred is a dirtbag. We'll never know the truth because that's not what courts do. Suits are just lawyer contests. What's-her-name the plaintiff has chosen to go high profile. Not what I would've done (probably -- who knows?), but it's her prerogative.

I agree with your assessment of Allred, but disagree as to the courts finding the truth. They do a pretty good job of it when the case actually goes to trial. Not perfect, but the jury system leavened by the appellate courts do a better job then most other countries can manage.

 

[Sluggo63]

The 2.0 was measured with a calibrated wrench to be dead on balls accurate. Plus with significant figures, the 100ths would never have been included, and 2.0 could NEVER be 3.0. It's 4.0

I specifically included the .0 to combat the inane argument that 2 is somehow 3.

Meh. I've done enough quantum (granted, it was a long time ago) to tell you that 2+2 is probably 4, but there's a small chance it isn't.

 

[bflynn]

The 2.0 was measured with a calibrated wrench to be dead on balls accurate. Plus with significant figures, the 100ths would never have been included, and 2.0 could NEVER be 3.0. It's 4.0

I specifically included the .0 to combat the inane argument that 2 is somehow 3.

You don’t understand. You are arguing theoretical. I am stating real world. There is a difference.

Remember, the example was about people and the degree of error in the opinions of juries.

 

[denverpilot]

Well because sadly most people don't share that sentiment. They play victim and don't take any initiative for themselves. And the world owes them something.

Well that and a number of people flying that jet are saying it’s not a problem in other forums.

Plenty of info is going to come out of this one. They didn’t choose to go the highly public route for no reason. Someone got their back up and didn’t settle out of court like 80% of cases.

I smell something else coming. You don’t fire off your best salvo in the first press conference unless you’re stupid.

Haven’t watched the presser. Or was it just a written release? Haven’t checked. But these press conferences usually blather on about how Justice will be served and such for quite a while and there’s a juicy tidbit hiding in there if you have time to watch the whole thing.

 

[Palmpilot]

Well because sadly most people don't share that sentiment. They play victim and don't take any initiative for themselves. And the world owes them something.

If it were really most people, i.e., greater than 50%, then I think the courts would be even more clogged than they already are!

 

[Palmpilot]

Meh. I've done enough quantum (granted, it was a long time ago) to tell you that 2+2 is probably 4, but there's a small chance it isn't.

It depends on whether you're talking about mathematics or science.

 

[Dana]

How much is 2+2?
Mathematician: "2"
Engineer: "2.00 plus or minus some tolerance"
Lawyer: "How much do you want it to be?"

Nowadays lawyers don't want jurors who know anything, or can even think. They want jurors who will be a blank sponge they can impress their own (the lawyer's) version of reality on.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

Well because sadly most people don't share that sentiment.

Most people? As in 51% or more of the population? Nope. I think your perception is incorrect here. I think most people DO share that sentiment. But we those folks don't make the news so we never hear about them and therefore we come away thinking they don't exist.

Now I admit I don't know the entire population personally. But of the people I do know personally, the number that have sued anyone ever is way less than 51%. Way less. I strongly suspect that's the case for most people who do not work in law.

 

[Palmpilot]

How much is 2+2?
Mathematician: "2"
Engineer: "2.00 plus or minus some tolerance"
Lawyer: "How much do you want it to be?"

Personally, I want it to be "4"

 

[MetalCloud]

If it were really most people, i.e., greater than 50%, then I think the courts would be even more clogged than they already are!

No, I didn't say that they all sue, did I? I was talking about their attitude.

 

[Palmpilot]

No, I didn't say that they all sue, did I? I was talking about their attitude.

If more than 50% of people had that attitude, I would expect to see a lot more lawsuits than there are.

 

[EdFred]

If more than 50% of people had that attitude, I would expect to see a lot more lawsuits than there are.

Not necessarily. There are a lot of racists out there, but not all of them are committing hate crimes. Actions != attitude.

 

[Palmpilot]

Not necessarily. There are a lot of racists out there, but not all of them are committing hate crimes. Actions != attitude.

Not all people with that attitude would have to sue in order for there to be a lot more lawsuits.

 

[MetalCloud]

Not necessarily. There are a lot of racists out there, but not all of them are committing hate crimes. Actions != attitude.

Exactly this.

 

[EdFred]

Not all people with that attitude would have to sue in order for there to be a lot more lawsuits.

A lot of people can't afford to file the lawsuits. Also, maybe people who want to actually get told by lawyers they have no case, or it gets settled way before it gets to court, or the press, and we never hear about it.

How many OEI landings are there each year? More than we hear about. But since we never hear about them, does it mean they never happen?

 

[MetalCloud]

A lot of people can't afford to file the lawsuits. Also, maybe people who want to actually get told by lawyers they have no case, or it gets settled way before it gets to court, or the press, and we never hear about it.

He's also being pedantic and saying that if that number is as high as I said it was then there would likely be more people suing thus making his previous comment about courts being clogged "correct" .... some people just have the need to be right all the time. It's actually pretty funny to watch.