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

Comment author: komponisto 23 February 2010 02:34:20AM 1 point [-]

Wasn't trying to enforce the use of jargon so much as classify the fallacy.

After all, the point is even more salient when you can relate it to a whole category of error found in many other contexts.

Comment author: AnnaGilmour 23 February 2010 04:44:10AM *  1 point [-]

I find the term useful. I think it is what a lot of the media has done. Since Amanda and Raffaele are in discussion and named in the theory, there must be something to it and they have equal weights of measure for concern as the third suspect, Rudy. When in fact, they are very lightweight and the (heavy) weight should be attributed to the method by which they became suspects. The term helps me to say "Oh that's what is going on." Like komponisto said, a whole category of error. (Not to mention all the contexts apart from this specific case, the topic at hand, indeed.)

Comment author: AnnaGilmour 23 February 2010 01:58:36AM 0 points [-]

I am also pointing out that is a question pertaining to applied situation with a limited scope - the decision to convict or exonerate. For all intents and purposes, relative "knowing" is permissible in a legal case, since we are dealing with human events and activities of a finite nature - a court decision is a discrete (not continuous) matter. After a certain point, probabilties have to turn into decisions.

Comment author: AnnaGilmour 23 February 2010 02:02:12AM -2 points [-]

Therefore, I offered 0 in the spirit of Goedel's completeness theorem, yes, at the expense of consistency. Consistency will yield a perpetual motion situation. Completeness is required and can be appropriately reached through reasoning, logic, objectivity, etc. Something can only consistent OR complete. Not both.

Comment author: AnnaGilmour 23 February 2010 01:52:42AM 2 points [-]

The thing that I am trying to point out is that I believe Amanda and Raffaele were wrongly included in the class called "suspects".

Comment author: AnnaGilmour 23 February 2010 01:58:36AM 0 points [-]

I am also pointing out that is a question pertaining to applied situation with a limited scope - the decision to convict or exonerate. For all intents and purposes, relative "knowing" is permissible in a legal case, since we are dealing with human events and activities of a finite nature - a court decision is a discrete (not continuous) matter. After a certain point, probabilties have to turn into decisions.

Comment author: komponisto 21 February 2010 08:22:31PM *  0 points [-]

Anna: for the context of this, see here.

You may want to remember that 0 and 1 are not probabilities. Also, I must say I don't understand your extremely high prior of 0.5 for Guede. (The evidence against him is such that the prior could be much, much lower and he would still have a very high probability of guilt.)

Comment author: AnnaGilmour 23 February 2010 01:52:42AM 2 points [-]

The thing that I am trying to point out is that I believe Amanda and Raffaele were wrongly included in the class called "suspects".

Comment author: kpreid 22 February 2010 01:53:09AM 0 points [-]

That's called a limit. What's special is not the “zero” but the “infinity”: you don't talk about a value “infinity” (attempting to have one causes you to lose various other useful properties), but rather that as some input increases without bound, the output approaches zero.

“The limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity is zero."

Comment author: AnnaGilmour 23 February 2010 01:47:46AM -1 points [-]

The concept of limits is a great way to look at this. A limit is a thing unto its own, a complex statement indicating, confirmed as much as is humanly possible.

Another notion is what Goedel brings to the table. His contribution of something being consistent or complete is relevant.

Comment author: Alicorn 22 February 2010 12:34:53AM 5 points [-]

Meredith could have committed suicide. She's probably more likely to be responsible for the death than Princess Diana. And she's much more likely than the team of Batman-and-square-circle.

Comment author: AnnaGilmour 22 February 2010 01:02:56AM 0 points [-]

Were there any fatal wounds that she could not have inflicted?

Comment author: Alicorn 21 February 2010 11:27:37PM *  3 points [-]

Exactly-0 isn't on the table at all. Close-enough-to-0-that-you-can-represent-it-that-way-without-too-much-disclaiming is reserved for propositions like "a square circle and Batman teamed up to, not kill, but kidnap and replace with a convincing inert android, Meredith". Princess Diana's odds of having killed Meredith are miniscule, but not zero or even compellingly zerolike, compared to those.

Comment author: AnnaGilmour 21 February 2010 11:38:00PM 0 points [-]

Well, it is quite fascinating that no one gets a 0 probability. Just to ask, does Meredith get a 0 probability? I will move past understanding the exclusion of 0. I just want to make sure I understand. Anyway, when I say 0, I understand it to mean functionally 0, which is the same as .0000000001, which is also functionally 0, correct? Thank you for you patience.

Comment author: komponisto 21 February 2010 08:42:53PM 0 points [-]

Although, you make a good point, in actuality, so I would amend them to .001. Is that a proper probability quotient in terms of the question?

Yes, that would be more reasonable (indeed, it's about where my own estimate is).

Comment author: AnnaGilmour 21 February 2010 11:24:02PM 0 points [-]

Is it possible to show that it would be impossible for them to have been participants making it 0? Is there anyone in the world in that class - of 0? Trying to understand the parameters of "probability".

Comment author: komponisto 21 February 2010 08:22:31PM *  0 points [-]

Anna: for the context of this, see here.

You may want to remember that 0 and 1 are not probabilities. Also, I must say I don't understand your extremely high prior of 0.5 for Guede. (The evidence against him is such that the prior could be much, much lower and he would still have a very high probability of guilt.)

Comment author: AnnaGilmour 21 February 2010 08:45:07PM *  0 points [-]

In other words, his psychological profile and actions leading up to the murder do not indicate that he was above board and immune from a violent attack, especially an attack with a knife. He was also known around town to go too far in the direction toward harassment of females around town at the clubs and so forth. He was also known to do various drugs including aggression-increasing drugs such as cocaine. He was known to break and enter and steal, and that he carried a ten inch knife "for protection" (his words). It could be argued then that it was a matter of brief time for him to break and enter, steal, and encounter someone indoors in the process as was arguably such in the situation with Meredith, and "defend" himself when caught or interrupted. This is the case that I would start to make as for a high prior.

Comment author: komponisto 21 February 2010 08:22:31PM *  0 points [-]

Anna: for the context of this, see here.

You may want to remember that 0 and 1 are not probabilities. Also, I must say I don't understand your extremely high prior of 0.5 for Guede. (The evidence against him is such that the prior could be much, much lower and he would still have a very high probability of guilt.)

Comment author: AnnaGilmour 21 February 2010 08:40:25PM 0 points [-]

It is true that a high probability of a prior is not necessary for probability of guilt.

It is also true, however, that it doesn't mean that he didn't have a high prior. I could drop it to .3 though. With the actions in the previous weeks, a case could be made that he was in an escalating pattern of behavior, which is why I gave him a .5 prior.

View more: Next