- This has probably been discussed before -- but if so, I don't know how to find it.
- I've been arguing in favor of the Shroud of Turin in this forum for four years... without getting anywhere. An underlying problem in the thread is our inability to agree upon what constitutes "evidence" -- in particular, "circumstantial evidence."
- So far, the definitions found don't seem to help very much...
- Here's my story, and I'm s-s-stickin to it!
1. An event can be consistent with both an hypothesis and its complement.
2. Being consistent with an hypothesis simply means that the event does not eliminate the hypothesis.
3. But such an event can still support one hypothesis over the other.
4. If one hypothesis is that the 'event' is a dog, and the other is that it's an elephant, having four legs doesn't support one hypothesis over the other.
5. But if one hypothesis is that the event is a dog, and the other hypothesis is that it isn't a dog, having four legs is supportive of the dog hypothesis over the non-dog hypothesis.
6. Our basic question here is how is such determined...
7. For instance fingerprints on the murder weapon is consistent with both guilt and innocence, but it's supportive of guilt.
8. Not that such fingerprints prove guilt, but, they can be added to the guilt side of the equation.
9. To determine that, we compare the likelihood of fingerprints given innocence to the likelihood of fingerprints given guilt.
10. Comparing those two, we get that the suspect's fingerprints on the murder weapon are more likely if the suspect is guilty than if he's innocent.
11. Consequently, fingerprints support guilt over innocence.
12. Also, they are circumstantial evidence all by themselves -- they don't need any more bits of evidence in order to be considered circumstantial evidence.
13. Also, direct evidence (e.g., witness testimony) can be false.
14. And finally, these principles apply to both science and law.
15. And four legs supports dog over non-dog.
- I've been arguing in favor of the Shroud of Turin in this forum for four years... without getting anywhere. An underlying problem in the thread is our inability to agree upon what constitutes "evidence" -- in particular, "circumstantial evidence."
- So far, the definitions found don't seem to help very much...
- Here's my story, and I'm s-s-stickin to it!
1. An event can be consistent with both an hypothesis and its complement.
2. Being consistent with an hypothesis simply means that the event does not eliminate the hypothesis.
3. But such an event can still support one hypothesis over the other.
4. If one hypothesis is that the 'event' is a dog, and the other is that it's an elephant, having four legs doesn't support one hypothesis over the other.
5. But if one hypothesis is that the event is a dog, and the other hypothesis is that it isn't a dog, having four legs is supportive of the dog hypothesis over the non-dog hypothesis.
6. Our basic question here is how is such determined...
7. For instance fingerprints on the murder weapon is consistent with both guilt and innocence, but it's supportive of guilt.
8. Not that such fingerprints prove guilt, but, they can be added to the guilt side of the equation.
9. To determine that, we compare the likelihood of fingerprints given innocence to the likelihood of fingerprints given guilt.
10. Comparing those two, we get that the suspect's fingerprints on the murder weapon are more likely if the suspect is guilty than if he's innocent.
11. Consequently, fingerprints support guilt over innocence.
12. Also, they are circumstantial evidence all by themselves -- they don't need any more bits of evidence in order to be considered circumstantial evidence.
13. Also, direct evidence (e.g., witness testimony) can be false.
14. And finally, these principles apply to both science and law.
15. And four legs supports dog over non-dog.
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/20XZM9n
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire