CornellEngr2008 — LessWrong

LESSWRONG
LW

Replying toHearsay, Double Hearsay, and Bayesian Updates

CornellEngr200814y

Hearsay, Double Hearsay, and Bayesian Updates

It is not a problem to have unreliable evidence come in if juries in fact recognize its unreliability.

I'm skeptical. After all, the anchoring effect isn't weakened by being reminded that it exists. It seems that anything the jury sees will influence their decision, and they will likely be unable to discount its influence appropriately to account for its unreliability (especially if its emotionally charged).

I've always been uneasy when the judge on some court TV drama sustains an objection or asks that something be stricken from the record, as if that means it's stricken from the minds of the jury so it won't influence their decision. We have good reason to believe that that's impossible - the jury's brains have been primed with a piece of argumentation that the judge has recognized is unadmissible. It's too late. At least, it has always seemed that way to me. What does the legal literature say about this?

Replying toPolicy Debates Should Not Appear One-Sided

CornellEngr200814y

Policy Debates Should Not Appear One-Sided

I was just making a simple factual observation. Why did some people think it was an argument in favor of regulation?

I've noticed that Argument by Innuendo is unfortunately common, at least in in-person discussions. Basically, the arguer makes statements that seem to point to some conclusion or another, but stops a few steps short of actually drawing a conclusion, leaving the listener to draw the conclusion themselves. When I've caught myself doing this and ask myself why, there are a few reasons that come up, including:

I'm testing my audience's intelligence in a somewhat subtle and mean way.
I'm throwing ideas out there that I know are more than one or two inferential

... (read more)

Replying toMy Way

CornellEngr200815y

My Way

I think the sentiment you're trying to express is captured in simply upvoting the post you're in agreement with. If you have nothing to add, it's probably best not to make a comment.

Replying toThe Cluster Structure of Thingspace

CornellEngr200815y

The Cluster Structure of Thingspace

Mathematics is largely already excepted from the above discussion - this post is talking about empirical clusters only ("When you draw a boundary around a group of extensional points empirically clustered in thingspace"), and mathematics largely operates in a priori truths derived from axioms. For example, no one needs to do a study of triangles to see whether their angle all do, indeed, add up to 180 degrees - when that's not part of the definition of triangles, it follows from the other definitions and axioms.