3 ms·
> Green thinks this scenario is so unlikely to occur twice that he hired a sports analytics firm to determine the odds were a mere “1-in-8 sextillion.” The fac
by tomxor 8y ago
> Green thinks this scenario is so unlikely to occur twice that he hired a sports analytics firm to determine the odds were a mere “1-in-8 sextillion.”
The fact this plaintiff implicitly argued the probability of fictional and non-fictional events are equal, made me realise that perhaps the seemingly moronic arguments we hear about from litigation in the technical world aren't all down to incompetence in reasoning about technology - just incompetence in reasoning about reality in general, but I guess people will say anything when they believe the opposition is wrong regardless of the implications of their insane reasoning.
- whatshisface 8y agoLawyers don't argue for the truth they fight for their clients. It has to be that way because court is an adversarial situation, so if one lawyer was arguing for the truth like a scientist and the other was being underhanded the underhanded one would have an advantage.
- tomxor 8y ago> if one lawyer was arguing for the truth like a scientist and the other was being underhanded the underhanded one would have an advantage. It's not about truth, trying to shill clearly flawed reasoning like this shows they really think very little of the ability of the system, you don't need facts or "truth" to see how their argument is broken by abstractly reasoning about it yourself. Putting forward arguments where the opposition disproves them by revealing something that gives a more complete picture is one thing because the original argument without extended context was valid... but throwing complete - neatly packaged fallacies at the wall until one sticks because those evaluating it are stupid enough to miss it is really quite low.