I must sheepishly admit that the elaborate explanation actually made it more difficult for me to understand the argument; I had to reconstruct it myself in order to see it.
I’m sorry to hear that. Unfortunately, adopting a general policy of eschewing elaborate explanations, and just stating the distilled main point and expecting everyone to understand its significance, won’t work either (it’s been tried).
I’m happy you at least did end up understanding the argument.
It might be more helpful if you identified particular passages that seemed to cloud your understanding.
Of course, what evidence the prosecution actually has for P1 and P2 in this case is a different question.
Do you suspect them of having strong evidence for either?
Agreed that just distilling the main point would do no better, and quite possibly worse.
It might be more helpful if you identified particular passages that seemed to cloud your understanding.
I didn’t mean to suggest it was particularly cloudy; it was more meant as an admission of personal failing.
That said, most of my confusion stemmed from thinking you were introducing a new claim when you were actually introducing an alternate framing of the same claim. Were I editing this for publication I would recommend clearly labeling and separating those framings—e.g., the probability-mathematical discussion vs. the real-world background—and adding a brief introduction summarizing the basic argument.
Aka “tell ‘em what you’re going to tell ‘em, tell ‘em, and then tell ‘em what you told ’em.”
Do you suspect them of having strong evidence for either?
Nope. I know absolutely nothing about this case other than what you present here, and what you present doesn’t suggest any such evidence.
I’m sorry to hear that. Unfortunately, adopting a general policy of eschewing elaborate explanations, and just stating the distilled main point and expecting everyone to understand its significance, won’t work either (it’s been tried).
I’m happy you at least did end up understanding the argument.
It might be more helpful if you identified particular passages that seemed to cloud your understanding.
Do you suspect them of having strong evidence for either?
Agreed that just distilling the main point would do no better, and quite possibly worse.
I didn’t mean to suggest it was particularly cloudy; it was more meant as an admission of personal failing.
That said, most of my confusion stemmed from thinking you were introducing a new claim when you were actually introducing an alternate framing of the same claim. Were I editing this for publication I would recommend clearly labeling and separating those framings—e.g., the probability-mathematical discussion vs. the real-world background—and adding a brief introduction summarizing the basic argument.
Aka “tell ‘em what you’re going to tell ‘em, tell ‘em, and then tell ‘em what you told ’em.”
Nope. I know absolutely nothing about this case other than what you present here, and what you present doesn’t suggest any such evidence.