= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
handoflixue comments on Inherited Improbabilities: Transferring the Burden of Proof - 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 (58)
My claim is that to reach a desired level of certainty about the burglary being faked, you would need evidence of approximately the same strength required to reach the same level of certainty about murder. (In other words, that the prior probability of fake burglary is roughly the prior probability of murder.)
This is the very opposite of what I said! What I said was that if you knew with high confidence that the burglary was fake, then you would need almost no additional evidence to convict of murder.
"my claim is that to reach a desired level of certainty about the burglary being faked, you would need evidence of approximately the same strength required to reach the same level of certainty about murder."
This assumes that the burglary being faked is the only piece of evidence. If we have three sets of evidence, and each one suggests a 90% chance of guilt, and each is independent of the other, then we have probability (10:1) x (10:1) x (10:1) = (1000:1). No one set of evidence needs to have a (1000:1) probability of guilty in order to reach a final conclusion that the odds are (1000:1). Arguing via modus tollens about a single piece of evidence tells us only that that evidence, in and of itself, is insufficient proof. It tells us nothing about how that evidence may act cumulatively with other pieces of evidence.
No; I fully grant that other evidence that Knox and Sollecito are guilty, if it exists, would be evidence of the burglary being fake, which would lower the burden of proof on that hypothesis.
However, that isn't how Massei and Cristiani reason. They don't say, in the section on the burglary (which is at the beginning of the report), "and since we know from all the other evidence that Knox and Sollecito are guilty, we can therefore easily use these arguments about glass patterns to confirm that they did in fact stage the burglary, in case you were wondering about that". And it's easy to see why they don't say that: there wouldn't be much point, because if they've already shown that Knox and Sollecito are guilty, their work is done! (*)
Instead, what they say is "these arguments about glass patterns etc. prove that the burglary was staged. Now, having established that piece of evidence against them (i,e. the staging of the burglary), let us now consider the other evidence, which, in combination with the burglary, will show how really guilty they are."
(* ) Technically, staging a burglary is itself an offense, so there may actually have been reason for them to proceed this way. But in that case the burglary issue would have come at the end of the report, not the beginning.
"these arguments about glass patterns etc. prove that the burglary was staged. Now, having established that piece of evidence against them (i,e. the staging of the burglary), let us now consider the other evidence, which, in combination with the burglary, will give us an accurate probability on whether they are guilty"
I've bolded a single change to your quote. With that change made, do you feel this is a reasonable assertion?
No. The error is in the first sentence
They only (conceivably) prove the burglary was staged if you're already taking into account the rest of the evidence of murder.
That's only true if you assume p(A=>B) is 1
...or approximately 1.
(And by P(A=>B), I think you meant P(B|A), didn't you?)
P(Someone faked the burglary) != P(Amanda Knox faked the burglary). The report asserts the first, not the second, from my reading.
Given that "someone faked" is true, I think assigning an approximately 100% chance that Amanda Knox is guilty is rather seriously unfounded. What am I missing?
That "burglary was faked" is shorthand for "burglary was faked by Knox and Sollecito" throughout this post and discussion. The latter is what Massei and Cristiani argue, and is what would most strongly imply that Knox and Sollecito are guilty of murder.
The evidence you quoted merely suggests the burglary was faked. I'd assume there are more people with a motive to do that than just Knox and Sollecito? Why would we assume, with high enough certainty to convict, that it was certainly them and not a roommate, or someone who knew them?
I figured this out but it threw me when I got to this part of the post. I'm not sure the convenience of the shorthand justifies throwing your readers off.