= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on The Cameron Todd Willingham test - 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 (83)
Were defense attorneys left out by accident, or do you think it's not important that they be Bayesian?
It's important that everyone be Bayesian, of course.
To address the implied subtext: yes, I'm in general more worried about false convictions than false acquittals.
Arguably, if investigators and jurors were pure Bayesian epistemic rationalists, attorneys (on either side) wouldn't even be necessary. That's an extremely fanciful state of affairs, however.