None of which change the fact that we still take innocence on the basis of an act of faith. If, for example, most people could be shown to be plotting something all of the time, would that mean we should switch to "guilty until proven innocent"? No. We take this stance not because of evidence but as an act of faith.
Just because someone is plotting a crime doesn't mean he will commit it. The presumption of innocence would still stay, as thoughtcrime itself is not a recognized crime.
Innocence is the absence of guilt. An absence can't be absolutely proven, any such attempt would be futile. That's why courts do not try to prove innocence, but guilt. Guilt can be proven; innocence can't be proven.
Faith makes us vulnerable to betrayal, yes. But doubt is inherently poison.
Reasonable doubt isn't.
No, the alternative is to trust until faith itself is denied by what is said or done. If you read my blog it goes into a little more detail of what a faith-based society is...and thus denial of faith involves in practice. I'm not speaking of blind faith, that carries on believing regardless, but of simple faith, that believes until given cause not to.
If so, then I have faith, too. I just have been given reason not to have faith in corporations, philosophies, people, governments and pretty much everything else anymore.
The difference between you and me, based on your argument, is simply that I have a reason not to have faith, but you don't.
Presuming innocence is itself an act of faith, because for all your words claiming its benefice the act itself of presumining innoncence still rests on faith in, rather than evidence of, innocence.
Innocence is absence. Absence can't be proven. I said so already.
You are mistaken here, and missing the key point, on both counts.
Certainly not.
Doubt itself, being the requiring of evidence before you believe something, is literally an insane concept.
It's not. I've already explained why logic without the burden of proof would defeat itself.
To truly embrace it you would have to doubt doubt itself, and then also doubt the doubting of doubt, ad infinitum.
The problem is, no one
embraces this concept. Your point is moot.
Sooner or later, you hit a point where this whole evidence thing won't work anymore. Let's say this point is the burden of proof. You don't have concrete evidence which suggests you should accept the concept of the burden of proof, but you should do so anyway, because the alternative would make logical thought impossible.
You could say we have
faith in the burden of proof, but this faith is nothing like the faith you propagate.
Doubting could never lead you to embrace doubt because it would require evidence and thus pre-suppose its own correctness and by doing so deny itself. And faith could never lead you to embrace doubt because that would contradict both faith and doubt.
Explained above.