= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I think I came up with a solution:
to date, the vast majority of grue-like hypotheses (hypotheses that suggest new items that have always been grue before time t will continue to be found grue after time t) has failed. inductive logic, then, doesn't suggest that because emeralds have been grue to date, they will continue to be grue after time t. so far, after every time t, that's not been the case.
If it's unclear what I mean when I say grue-like hypotheses have failed, let me word it better: if time t was 1975, then the hypothesis that emeralds found after time t will be grue was incorrect. same for 1976. same for 1977. etc etc. An infinite, or at least incredibly large number, of grue-like hypotheses, then, has failed, so inductive logic doesn't tell us to predict that emeralds found after time t will be grue. Inductive logic, to the contrary, tells us that once time t comes about, new emeralds found will be bleen.
Sorry for the sloppy wording, I hope you brilliant fellows will read my post for the idea within, and not for some sloppy wording to nitpick. Some of you guys are very good at that.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I feel the need to point out that the observation does not necessarily result in a bias. We literally know nothing about the legal system's arrangments for parolees here other than this single data point.
It could be, for example, that there is an understanding that the review boards arrange cases before judges based on the boards' estimate of the potential parolee's worthiness of release; with the 'worst offenders' being later in a giving hearing bracket. This would also take the shape of a linear decline in parole-granting rates -- but would not represent any bias in the judge's reasoning.
(In case this is not clear, as I appear to sometimes have difficulty communicating with others on this site: My only positional claim here is that we do not know if this is actually a bias at all, as we have too little data to make such a definitive statement. All else is merely explanation of this stance.)
I thumbed you up because you were technically correct about the fact that just because positive judgements drop doesn't mean there's a bias.
However, there is some extra data in this economist article on the same study to support the idea that there weren't factors in the arrangements of parole candidates that would account for such a drop: