4 ms·
Not necessarily. Unless the presence of the accusation already was used to get that 30% number, you also need to take into account the a priori probability of s
by atakan_gurkan 3y ago
Not necessarily. Unless the presence of the accusation already was used to get that 30% number, you also need to take into account the a priori probability of someone maliciously lying (or better yet, the particular accuser to be lying in this case) and apply Bayes's theorem.
- mbg721 3y agoI should have expected Simpson's Paradox here. Nevertheless, I think the possibility of witch-hunting is high.