= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
komponisto 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)
And that would be because...?
(The fundamental question of rationality: why do you believe what you believe?)
Mainly because (1) there is evidence of alteration/staging; and (2) Knox and Sollecito are still unable to give accounts of the evening (and next morning) which are reasonably coherent and consistent.
How many total bits of evidence against Knox and Sollecito do you think these things are worth?
I'm not sure . . . I'm ignorant of the evaluation of evidence in terms of "bits." Is there some link you can give me?
Yes.
If my math is correct, I would say somewhere between 3 and 4 bits.
I just want to say thanks for your posts, I have found them very interesting.
If the trial has been corrupted then one has to ask why the judge(s) involved would collude in such high profile corruption - that in itself seems unlikely unless there is an unsopken intention to reverse the verdict at appeal, having given the US 'a dose of it's own'. But that seems far fetched. Corruption happens for a reason and those reasons are also traceable.
Your argument that conviction was secured on the basis of a fanciful explanation but not without reason is persuasive. I too am of the opinion that things went on but I'm not sure that makes A and R as evil as they are portrayed or even guitly of murder.
But mainly, your posts are valuable because, without being able to argue the case mathematically, something clearly is wrong with this Bayesian worldview because it is not explaining life, and if Bayesian rationality is the key to 'knowing', as we are led to believe, then I would not be left feeling that many posts that adhere strictly to Bayesian reasoning are somehow missing the point. And I don't think that is because I am an evolutionary throw-back, I think it is because I have a good sense of things not sounding right - I have that feeling with the Knox trial and with this blog. Ciao