Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

AnnaGilmour comments on The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom - Less Wrong

42 Post author: komponisto 13 December 2009 04:16AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (632)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: AnnaGilmour 14 December 2009 07:41:08PM *  0 points [-]

There is another Occam's Razor at work here. With the blaringly obviousness of the truth of this case, how can it not be that it has been actively and intentionally ignored at best and fabricated at worst?

Comment author: AnnaGilmour 14 December 2009 07:46:14PM 1 point [-]

In other words, the Razor says that it was actively and intentionally ignored at best and fabricated at worst.

Comment author: Jack 14 December 2009 08:17:53PM 0 points [-]

I'm confused. What was fabricated at worst?

Comment author: AnnaGilmour 14 December 2009 08:28:02PM 0 points [-]

The entire case against Amanda and Raffaele.

Comment author: AnnaGilmour 14 December 2009 08:33:54PM 0 points [-]

The case for their involvement wasn't rooted in evidence or anything like evidence, so that they are obviously innocent was either ignored when this started to become clear, or the appearance of possible guilt was fabricated and known from the start that it was false.

Comment author: wedrifid 14 December 2009 08:42:50PM 1 point [-]

The case for their involvement wasn't rooted in evidence or anything like evidence, so that they are obviously innocent was either ignored when this started to become clear, or the appearance of possible guilt was fabricated and known from the start that it was false.

My impression tended towards the first of those two atrocities.

Comment author: wedrifid 14 December 2009 08:22:42PM 0 points [-]

The 'truth' (I think.)

Comment author: Jack 14 December 2009 08:32:48PM 0 points [-]

That is what the grammar of the sentence suggests, but how can the same evidence (the obviousness of the truth) indicate both that it was intentionally ignored and that it was fabricated. For that matter "the truth was fabricated" sounds like a category error to me. Truths aren't the sort of thing that can be fabricated. So I think Anna might have meant that the evidence against Knox was fabricated (or maybe the evidence against Guede).

Comment author: wedrifid 14 December 2009 08:39:15PM 1 point [-]

I concluded that she just forgot to proofread and took the meaning as "actively ignored the truth or fabricated falsehoods". (And that question is a good one.)

Comment author: AnnaGilmour 14 December 2009 08:40:08PM 0 points [-]

The case itself, that Amanda and Raffaele had any rightful place being tried. Does that help?

Comment author: Jack 14 December 2009 08:45:50PM 0 points [-]

Yeah I got it. The above went up before your clarification.