If you actually want to debate this, we could do so in the comments section of my post, or alternatively over in the Richard Dawkins forum.
(Though since you say “my intent is merely to debunk komponisto’s post rather than establish Amanda’s guilt”, I’m suspicious. See Against Devil’s Advocacy.)
Make sure you’ve read my comments here in addition to my post itself.
There is one thing I agree with you about, and that is that this statement of mine
these two things constituting so far as I know the entirety of the physical “evidence” against the couple
is misleading. The misleading part is the phrase “so far as I know”, which has been interpreted by people who evidently did not read my preceding survey post to mean that I had not heard about all the other alleged physical evidence. I didn’t consider this interpretation because I was assuming that my readers had read both True Justice and Friends of Amanda, knew from my previous post that I had obviously read them both myself, and would understand my statement for what it was -- a dismissal of the rest of the so-called “evidence”. However, in retrospect, I should have foreseen this misunderstanding, so I’ve now edited the sentence to read:
these two things constituting pretty much the entirety of the physical “evidence” against the couple.
ETA: At least one person has upvoted the parent without also upvoting this comment, which I interpret as an endorsement of Rolf Nelson’s essay. I find this baffling. Almost every one Nelson’s points (autopsy report, luminol prints, staged break-in, alleged cleanup...) was extensively discussed in comments at the time. The only one that wasn’t (a supposed handprint of Knox’s on a pillow in Kercher’s room) is an outright falsehood—as you will see from following Nelson’s link, it’s not even (close to) what that article claims. Furthermore, Nelson criticizes me for “accept[ing] propaganda from the Friends of Amanda (FoA) at face value” while citing True Justice for an “Introduction to Logic 101″.
I challenge anyone who thinks that this represents a serious challenge to my post to come out and identify themselves.
It is pretty clear to me that Devil’s Advocacy is valuable for precisely the reasons in the link Eliezer added at the end of the post (Brandon). I’m not sure we should, therefore, be automatically linking to the piece in response to instances of Devil’s advocacy until and unless someone writes a complementary post rebutting Brandon’s.
It is pretty clear to me that Devil’s Advocacy is valuable for precisely the reasons in the link Eliezer added at the end of the post (Brandon). I’m not sure we should, therefore, be automatically linking to the piece in response to instances of Devil’s advocacy until and unless someone writes a complementary post rebutting Brandon’s.
The only reason I haven’t posted my draft “Against Devil’s Advocacy” is that someone beat me to the punch and I didn’t want to make a redundant post. I endorce links to ‘Against Devil’s Advocacy’ precisely because it is an important subset of ‘Advocacy’ with all the related problems.
(a supposed handprint of Knox’s on a pillow in Kercher’s room) is an outright falsehood—as you will see from following Nelson’s link, it’s not even (close to) what that article claims.
Did you misread the source?
I said:
“One of Amanda’s bloody footprints was found inside the murder room, on a pillow hidden under Meredith’s body.”
“Guede’s bloody shoeprint was also positively identified on a pillow found under the victim’s body… Police also found the trace of a smaller shoe print on the pillow compatible with shoe sizes 6–8. The print did not, however, match any of the shoes belonging to Knox or Kercher that were found in the house. Knox wears a size 7, Rinaldi said.”
If you actually want to debate this, we could do so in the comments section of my post, or alternatively over in the Richard Dawkins forum.
(Though since you say “my intent is merely to debunk komponisto’s post rather than establish Amanda’s guilt”, I’m suspicious. See Against Devil’s Advocacy.)
Make sure you’ve read my comments here in addition to my post itself.
There is one thing I agree with you about, and that is that this statement of mine
is misleading. The misleading part is the phrase “so far as I know”, which has been interpreted by people who evidently did not read my preceding survey post to mean that I had not heard about all the other alleged physical evidence. I didn’t consider this interpretation because I was assuming that my readers had read both True Justice and Friends of Amanda, knew from my previous post that I had obviously read them both myself, and would understand my statement for what it was -- a dismissal of the rest of the so-called “evidence”. However, in retrospect, I should have foreseen this misunderstanding, so I’ve now edited the sentence to read:
ETA: At least one person has upvoted the parent without also upvoting this comment, which I interpret as an endorsement of Rolf Nelson’s essay. I find this baffling. Almost every one Nelson’s points (autopsy report, luminol prints, staged break-in, alleged cleanup...) was extensively discussed in comments at the time. The only one that wasn’t (a supposed handprint of Knox’s on a pillow in Kercher’s room) is an outright falsehood—as you will see from following Nelson’s link, it’s not even (close to) what that article claims. Furthermore, Nelson criticizes me for “accept[ing] propaganda from the Friends of Amanda (FoA) at face value” while citing True Justice for an “Introduction to Logic 101″.
I challenge anyone who thinks that this represents a serious challenge to my post to come out and identify themselves.
It is pretty clear to me that Devil’s Advocacy is valuable for precisely the reasons in the link Eliezer added at the end of the post (Brandon). I’m not sure we should, therefore, be automatically linking to the piece in response to instances of Devil’s advocacy until and unless someone writes a complementary post rebutting Brandon’s.
The only reason I haven’t posted my draft “Against Devil’s Advocacy” is that someone beat me to the punch and I didn’t want to make a redundant post. I endorce links to ‘Against Devil’s Advocacy’ precisely because it is an important subset of ‘Advocacy’ with all the related problems.
Did you misread the source?
I said:
“One of Amanda’s bloody footprints was found inside the murder room, on a pillow hidden under Meredith’s body.”
The source I cited (http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/International/story?id=7538538&page=2) said:
“Guede’s bloody shoeprint was also positively identified on a pillow found under the victim’s body… Police also found the trace of a smaller shoe print on the pillow compatible with shoe sizes 6–8. The print did not, however, match any of the shoes belonging to Knox or Kercher that were found in the house. Knox wears a size 7, Rinaldi said.”
Anyway, a debate sounds like a fun use of free time; I replied to the comment you indicated: http://lesswrong.com/lw/1j7/the_amanda_knox_test_how_an_hour_on_the_internet/1gdo