3 ms·
Sure, but folks using this argument don't quite use "evidence" in the same sense that courts do. Evidence is not "irrefutably correct", it is "a series of datap
by KirinDave 9y ago
Sure, but folks using this argument don't quite use "evidence" in the same sense that courts do. Evidence is not "irrefutably correct", it is "a series of datapoints that judge (and possibly jury) need to evaluate as part of the decision."
What's important is to lay out accurate odds for these systems, to which the fingerprinting folks don't always do. But a 5 point match on a fingerprint IS information even if it's not wholly conclusive.
- cecilpl2 9y agoYou are correct in a Bayesian sense, but until everyone is trained to be a Bayesian reasoner in primary school, we need to build the system in a way that ensures evidence is considered properly.
- adrianmonk 9y agoSo what's the solution? Throw out all evidence that isn't incontrovertible?
- KirinDave 9y agoThere is much ink spilled about how people aren't bayesian educated, but I don't really believe it and therefore don't agree with you. We're actually pretty good at identifying uncertainty and certainty within the physical world. It's only when we get into very large or very small numbers that we start to lose the plot.