Anyone who thinks that they can ascribe probabilities to the various propositions is deluded. It makes a mockery of both science and justice, and is quite alarming.
-
-
-
But what is the alternative? We do this every day with Likert scales. And if the mean of the error of the probabilities ascribed by the voting senators is zero, would we reach a just result?
-
Creating bogus models is a waste of energy that should be spent weighing Ford’s Senate testimony against prior inconsistent statements and other evidence, incl statements of other (alleged) witnesses. Strongest arguments against her are not Kavanaugh’s evidence but rather her own
-
Nailed it. There is endless evidence that Ford is lying about a countless number of things.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
interesting.. but wouldnt one also need to include probability, if one is open to possibility that Ford is part of Democrat conspiracy, that the (hypothetical) conspirators could find someone like her, not just an estimate of her coming forth even if she knew she wasnt assaulted?
-
A good illustration of your point is around the Swetnick/ Avenatti allegation. If Swetnick never met K, what are the chances she'd accuse him, knowing that Ford had? Vanishingly small. What are the odds that SOMEBODY with questionable credibility would? Probably pretty good.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Because what matters to the logic is whether Kavanaugh gets accused, not whether it's Swetnick or somebody else who does it. The likelihood that Bob Smith from Framingham MA won the lottery yesterday is low; the likelihood that somebody won the lottery yesterday is much higher.
-
yes, and this is why a similar process ought to be run on the "Did the Democrats do it?".. "it" referring to setup using someone (Ford or not) as their vehicle (i have no idea whether thats true or not), result of that would then feed into the "Did Kavanaugh do it?"
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This exercise is meaningless because it is dependent on cognitive biases. You can't come to a reasoned conclusion if the foundation is based on biases.pic.twitter.com/xFEWvk9kQJ
-
Garbage in; garbage out.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'll just leave this here for consideration - “A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.” ― Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
It is essential here to consider the plausibility of other hypotheses. The main one is that Democrats groomed Ford to lie in order to take down Kavanaugh. That seems really shady, but if you're familiar with how dirty politics can be, it not implausible.
-
Isn't it weird how the same people yelling about evidence and due process seem convinced the democrats are the master conspirators with literally no evidence and chant 'lock her up' every chance they get?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I tend to align with the analysis of
@SamHarrisOrg expounded on this weeks Waking Up Podcast #139 -
Me too
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
On probability, I tend towards
@nntaleb. Regardless, here's my Bayesian reasoning for you: The chances that the author of this article is an idiot who thinks he's way smarter than he really is: 126.7%. Think super-saturation--but for idiots.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Does it really matter? Apparently "rehabilitation" is yesterday. We should get rid of juvenile "correctional" facilities. Adolescents who do anything wrong should bear the stigma for life, and be denied any position of authority or responsibility, no? How about scarlet letters?
-
....or just people who lie repeatedly in their hearing shouldn't be allowed on the Supreme Court? Beyond that, a person who was in juvenile corrections would have served their time and hopefully shown remorse. This does not describe Brett if he actually did it...
-
Congratulations! You've demonstrated yet again that leftists can detect witches without anything as complicated as a trial. Since they're all perfect, they throw the first stone with alacrity. Jesus' adulteress would have been dead meat.
-
Also, as I am sure you know by now, a trial is not necessary to determine what is most likely true (especially as this isn't a criminal proceedings). Or else how could you confirm it was a witch hunt without a trial? Or claim Brett is innocent...without a trial...
-
Exactly! Americans have always stood proudly for the principle, "Guilty until proven innocent!", right? Funny thing, Bill Clinton "likely" lied, but that didn't matter, did it? "Believe the woman," unless it's Juanita Broaddrick!
-
I mean all those people who cry 'lock her up' every week seem to hold to that principle. In this case, it's not a criminal preceding, it's a matter of what is most likely true. He lied. A lot. He dodged questions and was conspiratorial. He isn't a suitable SCJ.
-
It's amazing how acute your ability to detect wrongdoing becomes when it's a matter of ideological expedience.
-
I am surprised you know how acute I am at finding wrongdoing, or how quick I am to judgment, in other cases. Do I know you? Have we met? Don't you need to be chanting 'lock her up' (code for let us not assume guilt before due process) somewhere?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.