Dawkins starts from the premise that there is high uncertainty about the outcome of the case, and concludes that there is high uncertainty about the guilt, which does not follow. Even if it is obvious to everyone that the defendant is very probably guilty, it may be far from obvious exactly how high the jury will estimate the probability of innocence, and where they will set the bar for reasonable doubt.*
*It has never been clear to me where this should be. If I put the credence of guilt at g, should I convict when g>.9? .99? .999? Should I say “to hell with the idea of reasonable doubt anyways, I’m going to estimate myself appropriate relative weights to attach to the outcomes 1) innocent man spends a lifetime in prison, and 2) serial murderer is unleashed upon the public?” I suppose because the lawyers and judge are unlikely to provide me with a credence threshold to use, the most sensible thing to do would be to derive one myself.
Dawkins starts from the premise that there is high uncertainty about the outcome of the case, and concludes that there is high uncertainty about the guilt, which does not follow. Even if it is obvious to everyone that the defendant is very probably guilty, it may be far from obvious exactly how high the jury will estimate the probability of innocence, and where they will set the bar for reasonable doubt.*
*It has never been clear to me where this should be. If I put the credence of guilt at g, should I convict when g>.9? .99? .999? Should I say “to hell with the idea of reasonable doubt anyways, I’m going to estimate myself appropriate relative weights to attach to the outcomes 1) innocent man spends a lifetime in prison, and 2) serial murderer is unleashed upon the public?” I suppose because the lawyers and judge are unlikely to provide me with a credence threshold to use, the most sensible thing to do would be to derive one myself.