4 ms·

The article we're commenting on, where a friend attests he was told explicitly that any "suicide" is fowl play. Sure, it's nowhere near "beyond a reasonable do

The article we're commenting on, where a friend attests he was told explicitly that any "suicide" is fowl play. Sure, it's nowhere near "beyond a reasonable doubt", but it's plenty, together with the obvious motive, to form an opinion.

pdpi 3y ago
> fowl play You probably meant foul play. "Fowl" means chicken-y (galliformes) or duck-y (anseriformes) birds.
- dataflow 3y ago
  Fowl play was what the DoJ suspected when they were investigating the chicken industry.
georgespencer 3y ago
> fowl play It's "foul" play. > Sure, it's nowhere near "beyond a reasonable doubt" To the extent that I do not think it would even be admissible in court in many (all?) states. Hearsay, not under oath, not cross-examinable. Just as possible she misunderstood the dark joke of an obviously suicidal and self-reflective man as people like you and me at Boeing literally arranged to have someone killed lmao. I can basically only think of more plausible explanations: coincidental victim of murder, suicidal due to stress of whistle-blowing, witness misheard, witness misunderstood, witness made it up… I can really hear the bottom of the barrel being scraped around here lately.
gruez 3y ago
> The article we're commenting on, where a friend attests he was told explicitly that any "suicide" is fowl play. Isn't there obvious reporting bias here? People typically don't go around saying "btw I'm going to kill myself, if that happens assume it's not foul play", so it shouldn't be too surprising that people kill themselves even though they said they wouldn't. Moreover people who actually tell people they're going to kill themselves likely will receive intervention (eg. suicide watch/hospitalization), which further drives up the relative rate of people committing suicide "unexpectedly".
- hnfong 3y ago
  If you dismiss all the evidence "supporting this theory" (your words) then obviously you wouldn't find anything that supports it. Evidence does not have to be perfect. Even biased evidence should update your priors. There is evidence supporting this theory. It doesn't mean it is definitely true.
  - gruez 3y ago
    > If you dismiss all the evidence "supporting this theory" (your words) then obviously you wouldn't find anything that supports it. Right, and the converse is you accepting any evidence that vaguely conforms to the narrative of "he got killed by boeing", regardless of how shaky it is. >Evidence does not have to be perfect. Even biased evidence should update your priors. There is evidence supporting this theory. It doesn't mean it is definitely true. This feels like a motte and bailey. You claim that we should update our priors even based on biased evidence, but I never claimed otherwise. My previous comment merely pointed out the issues with taking statements like "if anything happens don't assume it's a suicide" at face value. Moreover the comment I was replying to wasn't merely claiming that we should update our priors, it was that the evidence in question was "plenty, together with the obvious motive, to form an opinion". That's a much stronger claim.
    - hnfong 3y ago
      > Right, and the converse is you accepting any evidence that I literally said one must update their priors, not just "accepting" it. Or maybe updating priors is a form of "acceptance", but now you claim it isn't a problem: > You claim that we should update our priors even based on biased evidence, but I never claimed otherwise The comment you replied to just answered your question: "is there anything supporting this theory". Presumably everyone here knows basic Bayesian probability, or at least knows how to weigh supporting evidence without just blindly accepting it. Claiming otherwise seems to be rather uncharitable interpretation of the comment you replied to.
      - renewiltord 3y ago

pdpi 3y ago

> fowl play You probably meant foul play. "Fowl" means chicken-y (galliformes) or duck-y (anseriformes) birds.

dataflow 3y ago
Fowl play was what the DoJ suspected when they were investigating the chicken industry.

georgespencer 3y ago

> fowl play It's "foul" play. > Sure, it's nowhere near "beyond a reasonable doubt" To the extent that I do not think it would even be admissible in court in many (all?) states. Hearsay, not under oath, not cross-examinable. Just as possible she misunderstood the dark joke of an obviously suicidal and self-reflective man as people like you and me at Boeing literally arranged to have someone killed lmao. I can basically only think of more plausible explanations: coincidental victim of murder, suicidal due to stress of whistle-blowing, witness misheard, witness misunderstood, witness made it up… I can really hear the bottom of the barrel being scraped around here lately.

gruez 3y ago

> The article we're commenting on, where a friend attests he was told explicitly that any "suicide" is fowl play. Isn't there obvious reporting bias here? People typically don't go around saying "btw I'm going to kill myself, if that happens assume it's not foul play", so it shouldn't be too surprising that people kill themselves even though they said they wouldn't. Moreover people who actually tell people they're going to kill themselves likely will receive intervention (eg. suicide watch/hospitalization), which further drives up the relative rate of people committing suicide "unexpectedly".

hnfong 3y ago
If you dismiss all the evidence "supporting this theory" (your words) then obviously you wouldn't find anything that supports it. Evidence does not have to be perfect. Even biased evidence should update your priors. There is evidence supporting this theory. It doesn't mean it is definitely true.
- gruez 3y ago
  > If you dismiss all the evidence "supporting this theory" (your words) then obviously you wouldn't find anything that supports it. Right, and the converse is you accepting any evidence that vaguely conforms to the narrative of "he got killed by boeing", regardless of how shaky it is. >Evidence does not have to be perfect. Even biased evidence should update your priors. There is evidence supporting this theory. It doesn't mean it is definitely true. This feels like a motte and bailey. You claim that we should update our priors even based on biased evidence, but I never claimed otherwise. My previous comment merely pointed out the issues with taking statements like "if anything happens don't assume it's a suicide" at face value. Moreover the comment I was replying to wasn't merely claiming that we should update our priors, it was that the evidence in question was "plenty, together with the obvious motive, to form an opinion". That's a much stronger claim.
  - hnfong 3y ago
    > Right, and the converse is you accepting any evidence that I literally said one must update their priors, not just "accepting" it. Or maybe updating priors is a form of "acceptance", but now you claim it isn't a problem: > You claim that we should update our priors even based on biased evidence, but I never claimed otherwise The comment you replied to just answered your question: "is there anything supporting this theory". Presumably everyone here knows basic Bayesian probability, or at least knows how to weigh supporting evidence without just blindly accepting it. Claiming otherwise seems to be rather uncharitable interpretation of the comment you replied to.
    - renewiltord 3y ago