3 ms·

While I appreciate that they attempted to use some kind of scientific reckoning, using a weak science (handwriting analysis) and then adding ridiculously high n

While I appreciate that they attempted to use some kind of scientific reckoning, using a weak science (handwriting analysis) and then adding ridiculously high numbers to it (1/2.666E21) is a really bad way to decide on this. Link below [2] explains that the probability was NOT 1/2.666E21 that it was not fake, because it is more likely than that that the science of handwriting analysis is incorrect, or that the analysis was done incorrectly, or anything similar (i.e. A one-in-a-trillion chance is more likely to be incorrect than one-in-a-trillion). Bonus round: They also commit the "Prosecutor's fallacy" [1], where they explain how likely the evidence is given the hypothesis instead of explaining how likely the hypothesis is given the evidence. Example: You are found in a store and accused of robbing it. They ruled that you were accused of robbing the store, and you being in the store fits this theory, when they should have ruled on how likely you were to have robbed a store when they only knew you were in it (not very likely, lots of people may have been in the store). https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/GrtbTAPfkJa4D6jjH/confidence-levels-inside-and-outside-an-argument https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/GrtbTAPfkJa4D6jjH/confidence...

knodi123 6y ago
> using a weak science (handwriting analysis) and then adding ridiculously high numbers to it (1/2.666E21) is a really bad way to decide on this. Ah, but ridiculously high numbers get such a nice emotional reaction from a jury. I once had a conversation with a guy who fiercely proclaimed that if you shuffle a deck of cards, the resulting ordering is likely to be utterly unique in the history of all shuffled decks ever, because there are <dramatic pause /> 8E67 possibilities!1! Same as the number of atoms in our galazxy! I went on to explain that while in theory this is true, in practice there are a lot of caveats. Since brand new unopened deck of cards are usually all in the same order, and since a perfect cut and a perfect riffle shuffle (left/right/left/right/left etc) will always produce one of two orderings, depending on whether you start with the left or right decks, etc etc, it lowers the odds drastically. And it would be more proper to say that if you sloppily shuffle a deck about 7 times, then the original claim is probably true. But I lost the crowd. They had already had an emotional reaction to the enormous number .

knodi123 6y ago

> using a weak science (handwriting analysis) and then adding ridiculously high numbers to it (1/2.666E21) is a really bad way to decide on this. Ah, but ridiculously high numbers get such a nice emotional reaction from a jury. I once had a conversation with a guy who fiercely proclaimed that if you shuffle a deck of cards, the resulting ordering is likely to be utterly unique in the history of all shuffled decks ever, because there are <dramatic pause /> 8E67 possibilities!1! Same as the number of atoms in our galazxy! I went on to explain that while in theory this is true, in practice there are a lot of caveats. Since brand new unopened deck of cards are usually all in the same order, and since a perfect cut and a perfect riffle shuffle (left/right/left/right/left etc) will always produce one of two orderings, depending on whether you start with the left or right decks, etc etc, it lowers the odds drastically. And it would be more proper to say that if you sloppily shuffle a deck about 7 times, then the original claim is probably true. But I lost the crowd. They had already had an emotional reaction to the enormous number .