= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
steven0461 comments on Amanda Knox: post mortem - 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 (483)
I would say that sending an individual with 13% probability of innocence to jail is clearly wrong, because 1 out of 10 of them would be innocent.
So the premise instead is: adding a 13% innocent population of any subset or category of individuals to jail is clearly wrong
leading to the conclusion: sending an individual with only 87% probability of guilt to jail is wrong
Yes, that's what I meant by what I said. But the problem is that, at least to me, the premise is no more obvious than the conclusion.
I see. It's a little more obvious to spell out "more than 1 out of 10 innocent" instead of "only 87% probablity of guilt" but if you see them as immediately equivalent then indeed the argument will do nothing for you.