= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
aausch comments on The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom - 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 (632)
It might have been more useful to ask for confidence intervals around probabilities. Maybe that should become the standard around here?
That way, I imagine people who did not care so much about the topic/do as much research, would have had a way to indicate the fact.
No! In this context confidence intervals around the probability have no meaning!
I do agree that adding extra information about confidence is important for things like this. It's just that this isn't a case for which confidence intervals (approximately) work. It would make more sense if the probability was a property of the universe itself, then you could establish bounds on where the 'true probability' lies (as discussed with komponisto).
Why can't they be confidence intervals around the probability after doing [some amount] more research?
Relevant post: Readiness Heuristics
That you can do.
I feel the same way. I set the probabilities to 25 (not G alone) / 75 (G alone) after half an hour of reading, just because I wanted to have room to be more confident after 2 hours of reading.