= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
imaxwell comments on You Be the Jury: Survey on a Current Event - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (260)
The main reason my estimate is so high is because
I know my information came from two heavily biased sites, and
I found the "innocent" site a lot easier to follow and therefore paid more attention to it, so I know my information is particularly biased in that direction.
That said, I did consider a more-arrogant probability of 0.25 or so. My caution in this case isn't on general principle, but because I have something of an old history of embracing cause celebre cases like this only to decide on further reading that the person I'm defending is guilty as hell.
I agree with Eliezer but like Maxwell's point about assigning extra probability to Knox and Sollecito because the guilty argument was so poorly formated. "She was convicted but I don't get why, perhaps I don't understand this."
That said I think 15% or less more then accounts for this uncertainty. I gave Knox a 6% probability.
Side note, I am surprised that more people are not assigning probability to the chance that none of them did it.