senooken JP Social
  • FAQ
  • Login
senooken JP Socialはsenookenの専用分散SNSです。
  • Public

    • Public
    • Network
    • Groups
    • Popular
    • People

Conversation

Notices

  1. ayu-mushi (ayu_mushi@mstdn.jp)'s status on Friday, 26-Feb-2021 12:31:37 JST ayu-mushi ayu-mushi

    事実eがP(h|e)>P(h)という意味ではhのベイズ的証拠ではあるけど、他の意味では証拠と認められない事例、または他の意味では証拠だけどP(h|e)>P(h)でない事例を他に探してみると面白そう [Scientific Evidence, Legal Evidence, Rational Evidence - LessWrong https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fhojYBGGiYAFcryHZ/scientific-evidence-legal-evidence-rational-evidence ]

    In conversation Friday, 26-Feb-2021 12:31:37 JST from mstdn.jp permalink

    Attachments

    1. Domain not in remote thumbnail source whitelist: res.cloudinary.com
      Scientific Evidence, Legal Evidence, Rational Evidence - LessWrong
      Suppose that your good friend, the police commissioner, tells you in strictest confidence that the crime kingpin of your city is Wulky Wilkinsen. As a rationalist, are you licensed to believe this statement? Put it this way: if you go ahead and insult Wulky, I’d call you foolhardy. Since it is prudent to act as if Wulky has a substantially higher-than-default probability of being a crime boss, the police commissioner’s statement must have been strong Bayesian evidence. Our legal system will not imprison Wulky on the basis of the police commissioner’s statement. It is not admissible as legal evidence. Maybe if you locked up every person accused of being a crime boss by a police commissioner, you’d initially catch a lot of crime bosses, and relatively few people the commissioner just didn’t like. But unrestrained power attracts corruption like honey attracts flies: over time, you’d catch fewer and fewer real crime bosses (who would go to greater lengths to ensure anonymity), and more and more innocent victims. This does not mean that the police commissioner’s statement is not rational evidence. It still has a lopsided likelihood ratio, and you’d still be a fool to insult Wulky. But on a social level, in pursuit of a social goal, we deliberately define “legal evidence” to include only particular kinds of evidence, such as the police commissioner’s own observations on the night of April 4th. All legal evidence should ideally be rational evidence, but not the other way around. We impose special, strong, additional standards before we anoint rational evidence as “legal evidence.” As I write this sentence at 8:33 p.m., Pacific time, on August 18th, 2007, I am wearing white socks. As a rationalist, are you licensed to believe the previous statement? Yes. Could I testify to it in court? Yes. Is it a scientific statement? No, because there is no experiment you can perform yourself to verify it. Science is made up of generalizations which apply to many particular instan
    • sumiyaki likes this.

Feeds

  • Activity Streams
  • RSS 2.0
  • Atom
  • Help
  • About
  • FAQ
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • Source
  • Version
  • Contact

senooken JP Social is a social network, courtesy of senooken. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-beta0, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 All senooken JP Social content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.