3 ms·

e.g. A bunch of people debate "rationality" using a few "priors" based on flimsy evidence from the internet. Just because you can use Bayesian nomenclature to

by ezy 17y ago

e.g. A bunch of people debate "rationality" using a few "priors" based on flimsy evidence from the internet. Just because you can use Bayesian nomenclature to snow others, doesn't make it rational. This whole thing hinges on the priors, and the author has given very weak evidence for them.

rms 17y ago
The "flimsy evidence from the internet" is the same or perhaps more complete than the courtroom evidence.
- ezy 17y ago
  Is that actually true, or are you assuming that is true? The comments on the post relate further evidence that was missing from the analysis the poster provides. Why? Because the poster made a judgement call that it wasn't relevant. That alone makes this just so much blathering... sorry.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - rms 17y ago
    I think the evidence on the internet firmly establishes that there is a substantial probability that Knox and Solecito are guilty of lying about the events of the evening but that does not come to close to establishing that they committed murder. There is a reasonable doubt. What evidence is missing from the internet that makes them guilty? I guess we will find out in a few months when the judge and jury issue their written explanation. Is anyone willing to state that they are certain Knox and Solecito are guilty of murder?
frisco 17y ago
The whole thing doesn't hinge on the priors: the priors should be rather easy to agree to (i.e., the observable rate at which the general population in Amanda Knox's relative bucket commit murders). The author's entire point is that all of the evidence presented against Ms Knox is irrelevant because the bar for it to be incriminating is way high given the evidence against Guede (and it doesn't meet that bar).
- ezy 17y ago
  This doesn't make sense. For two reasons. (a) It isn't zero-sum. Guede was convicted -- he is guilty, he did it. What we are determining is whether he acted alone. (b) The priors are crap because they are weak, not because they are agreed upon. This is just a model, and it feels to me that the author is overfitting. The prior you mentioned as an example is so far away from the case at hand to be virtually useless.
  - frisco 17y ago
    So, you're right in that Guede being guilty doesn't imply that Knox isn't. But, the evidence against him affects how the evidence against Knox has to be handled: for example, the lack of physical evidence against Knox becomes a big deal when Guede leaves tons of it. Re: priors being far away: a prior is the probability of an event occurring before any evidence has been observed. Priors are always necessarily that far removed; those are the correct priors.
    - zaphar 17y ago
      How exactly does the evidence against Guede affect the regarding of evidence against Knox? Assuming that everyone involved (if it was multiple parties) were equally involved equally competent and hiding their involvement and left equal evidence of their involvement is just that an "assumption". It's not necessarily true and is in fact highly unlikely to be true. In the article actual physical evidence is dismissed because it's "small in quantity". The amount of blood is far less important than whose blood it is. You only need a little dna to prove contact. And you only need a little blood to prove prescence at the scene of an injury. It sounds to me like the jury was doing it's job and the article's author was just looking for a point to make.
      - demallien 17y ago
        But it isn't just that it's "small in quantity" that means that there is a problem. Amanda was a housemate, it would be incredible if her DNA couldn't be found in her housemate's room. The simplest explanation for Amanda's DNA being in the room is that she had previously spent some time there talking to Meredith. To put this another way, have a think about where you would expect your own DNA to show up. At home, at your partner's appartment, at the office, at the cafe around the corner from the office, in your car, in your partner's car, at your best friend's home, your best friend's car. If a murder ever took place in one of these locations, how would you feel about the presence of your DNA being used to implicate you in the murder?
tel 17y ago
Not quite. The author's point is that, at least according to released information and any unavoidable biases involved, the physical evidence strongly suggests Guede while hardly even slightly suggesting he had help. More strongly the author is trying to argue that its an easy fallacy to get drawn into psychological motives because we're "great" at modeling other people's thoughts. In light of this implicitly perceived strength we tend to ignore the real likelihood of the evidences. I don't know if it's something I agree about, however. I haven't personally reviewed the evidence and don't particularly put a lot of trust in any of the sources including the Less Wrong contributors. See also: the experimental portion of this essay http://lesswrong.com/lw/1j7/the_amanda_knox_test_how_an_hour_on_the_internet/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/1j7/the_amanda_knox_test_how_an_hour...

by ezy 17y ago

rms 17y ago

The "flimsy evidence from the internet" is the same or perhaps more complete than the courtroom evidence.

ezy 17y ago
Is that actually true, or are you assuming that is true? The comments on the post relate further evidence that was missing from the analysis the poster provides. Why? Because the poster made a judgement call that it wasn't relevant. That alone makes this just so much blathering... sorry.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- rms 17y ago
  I think the evidence on the internet firmly establishes that there is a substantial probability that Knox and Solecito are guilty of lying about the events of the evening but that does not come to close to establishing that they committed murder. There is a reasonable doubt. What evidence is missing from the internet that makes them guilty? I guess we will find out in a few months when the judge and jury issue their written explanation. Is anyone willing to state that they are certain Knox and Solecito are guilty of murder?

frisco 17y ago

The whole thing doesn't hinge on the priors: the priors should be rather easy to agree to (i.e., the observable rate at which the general population in Amanda Knox's relative bucket commit murders). The author's entire point is that all of the evidence presented against Ms Knox is irrelevant because the bar for it to be incriminating is way high given the evidence against Guede (and it doesn't meet that bar).

ezy 17y ago
This doesn't make sense. For two reasons. (a) It isn't zero-sum. Guede was convicted -- he is guilty, he did it. What we are determining is whether he acted alone. (b) The priors are crap because they are weak, not because they are agreed upon. This is just a model, and it feels to me that the author is overfitting. The prior you mentioned as an example is so far away from the case at hand to be virtually useless.
- frisco 17y ago
  So, you're right in that Guede being guilty doesn't imply that Knox isn't. But, the evidence against him affects how the evidence against Knox has to be handled: for example, the lack of physical evidence against Knox becomes a big deal when Guede leaves tons of it. Re: priors being far away: a prior is the probability of an event occurring before any evidence has been observed. Priors are always necessarily that far removed; those are the correct priors.
  - zaphar 17y ago
    How exactly does the evidence against Guede affect the regarding of evidence against Knox? Assuming that everyone involved (if it was multiple parties) were equally involved equally competent and hiding their involvement and left equal evidence of their involvement is just that an "assumption". It's not necessarily true and is in fact highly unlikely to be true. In the article actual physical evidence is dismissed because it's "small in quantity". The amount of blood is far less important than whose blood it is. You only need a little dna to prove contact. And you only need a little blood to prove prescence at the scene of an injury. It sounds to me like the jury was doing it's job and the article's author was just looking for a point to make.
    - demallien 17y ago
      But it isn't just that it's "small in quantity" that means that there is a problem. Amanda was a housemate, it would be incredible if her DNA couldn't be found in her housemate's room. The simplest explanation for Amanda's DNA being in the room is that she had previously spent some time there talking to Meredith. To put this another way, have a think about where you would expect your own DNA to show up. At home, at your partner's appartment, at the office, at the cafe around the corner from the office, in your car, in your partner's car, at your best friend's home, your best friend's car. If a murder ever took place in one of these locations, how would you feel about the presence of your DNA being used to implicate you in the murder?

tel 17y ago

Not quite. The author's point is that, at least according to released information and any unavoidable biases involved, the physical evidence strongly suggests Guede while hardly even slightly suggesting he had help. More strongly the author is trying to argue that its an easy fallacy to get drawn into psychological motives because we're "great" at modeling other people's thoughts. In light of this implicitly perceived strength we tend to ignore the real likelihood of the evidences. I don't know if it's something I agree about, however. I haven't personally reviewed the evidence and don't particularly put a lot of trust in any of the sources including the Less Wrong contributors. See also: the experimental portion of this essay http://lesswrong.com/lw/1j7/the_amanda_knox_test_how_an_hour_on_the_internet/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/1j7/the_amanda_knox_test_how_an_hour...