3 ms·
I'd recommend reading mcherm's comment again. He doesn't state that 90% could be pranks. He states "If, for instance, I were to learn that 90% ..." This is c
by MereInterest 5y ago
I'd recommend reading mcherm's comment again. He doesn't state that 90% could be pranks. He states "If, for instance, I were to learn that 90% ..." This is called "reductio ad absurdum", and is a pretty standard method of arguments. The statement from x86_64Ubuntu was that a report of violence in all cases is responded to by a SWAT team, with the implication that this is correct and reasonable behavior in all circumstances.
From my reading, mcherm is giving a hypothetical scenario in which the automatic response of sending a SWAT team would be unreasonable. The conclusion isn't that we exist in that hypothetical scenario, but that more information is needed in order to determine whether and how close we may be to it.
- unishark 5y agoYes but the reasonableness of that hypothetical can still be challenged. This isn't a math proof, but a discussion of the reasonableness of a policy.
- MereInterest 5y agoCorrect, and the hypothetical establishes that the proportion of maliciously false calls is essential for determining the reasonableness of the policy. At 0% maliciously false calls, reasonable. At 90% maliciously false calls, unreasonable. Clearly, that number is important to the discussion, which is the sole point of introducing the hypothetical.
- mcherm 5y agoThank you for explaining this so clearly.
- unishark 5y agoThis is a repeat of the same argument. An unrealistic hypothetical does not establish that we need to consider something in the real world. Hypothetically perhaps UFO's were beaming ideas into the cops' heads, hence we cannot trust their statements and need an alternative data source. Nope, this is preposterous so we can go ahead and not worry about concerns based solely on this argument.