5 ms·
It's because the author was being honest about their thought process. Heather was the most likely suspect, a priori. There is nothing wrong with recognizing tha
by wyager 10y ago
It's because the author was being honest about their thought process. Heather was the most likely suspect, a priori. There is nothing wrong with recognizing that, so the author has nothing to apologize for. If the author had punished Heather based on his suspicions, that would have been wrong.
- zellyn 10y agoI fail to understand why a person in a lab who approaches a superior to lodge a complaint that their work has been sabotaged is "a priori" the most likely suspect. Perhaps you have some kind of lab-sabotage data you're referring to? Do you have a link. I think if someone comes to you and tells you their work has been sabotaged, the most straightforward thing to do is to believe them.
- eastWestMath 10y agoSomeone with a failing business is going to be the prime suspect when it burns down, a researcher whose project appears to be going nowhere will be the prime suspect when their samples are sabotaged. It's fairly straight-forward reasoning.