What is this supposed to teach us about rationality that we did not learn from the Amanda Knox case?
I don’t think it is a good idea to invoke any sort of controversy without some specific novel point to make. I would not object were it just a thought experiment in an open thread, but good cause is necessary for a top-level post.
Right, top level posts need to be held to a strict standard: they need to be good, not just “somewhat nice to have around”. Furthermore, they should include things of practical relevance to our everyday existence, like materials science, recycling, non-destructive fasteners, etc.
What is this supposed to teach us about rationality that we did not learn from the Amanda Knox case?
I don’t think it is a good idea to invoke any sort of controversy without some specific novel point to make. I would not object were it just a thought experiment in an open thread, but good cause is necessary for a top-level post.
I asked two questions that I wanted to see answers for. And the Bayesian justice question is a really hard question.
Every post does not have to be made with the specific goal of teaching rationality. There is a much larger set of possible purposes for posts.
This thread probably belongs in the meta thread.
Done.
I don’t see what the harm is in more practice.
I would hold top-level posts to a higher standard than “don’t see the harm”.
Right, top level posts need to be held to a strict standard: they need to be good, not just “somewhat nice to have around”. Furthermore, they should include things of practical relevance to our everyday existence, like materials science, recycling, non-destructive fasteners, etc.
I don’t!