In terms of the rules of the post, it takes a leap to get to the idea of a staging. One has to infer it. Amanda’s DNA is not on the glass or the objects, anyway, even in the unlikely event that there was a staging.
“Interpreting evidence is always a matter of inference.”
Without physical evidence of something, how do you, except by imagination, come up with an explanation? Logic of the situation, yes. But this forms a tautology in this case. She broke the window and staged a break-in (though there is no physical evidence that suggests this) because… why? Because… someone wants it to look like she did the crime. My point was that komponisto showed how you have to have a reason in the situation itself to suggest it. This theory of the staged break-in is being used as a reason to suspect Amanda. The reason to suspect Amanda of a staged break-in is that more evidence is needed to implicate her in the crime. To say that “if Amanda staged a break-in, it would implicate her” may be true, but it would also be true of anyone. It could equally be true of the other two roommates, for example. The only thing that made Amanda stand out in this regard is that she was there first and that someone read into her behavior as significant.
“The reason to suspect Amanda of a staged break-in is that more evidence is needed to implicate her in the crime.”
That’s one reason. A better reason to suspect Amanda of a staged break-in is to note that there is in fact evidence of a staged break-in and to observe that (1) it’s mainly somebody who was closely associated with the victim who would have had a motive to do such a thing; and (2) Knox had a good opportunity to do so.
“only thing that made Amanda stand out in this regard ”
I find this hard to believe, particularly after the multiple explanations given to you. Even if these multiple explanations that leave open technicalities for exploitation by a reader who does not desire comprehension. I get the impression that you are being disingenuous. If not, please reread the grandparent again assuming the sentence “One has to infer it.” was removed.
“I find this hard to believe, particularly after the multiple explanations given to you.”
There’s no way to prove it. But let’s do this:
Please give me a couple of examples of evidence and (possible) conclusions which “require a leap” as well as a couple of examples of evidence and (possible) conclusions which do NOT “require a leap.”
The house has been reduced to a pile of charred debris → There was a fire.
The house has been reduced to a pile of charred debris → There was arson.
Anna would obviously call 2) a leap but not 1). I am aware that a similar process of inference is involved, differing only by degree and yet I am still able to grasp what Anna is trying to say. That Anna has explained what she is trying to say multiple times helps, as does my IQ. Yet I don’t think either of these things are required to get at least some idea of the intended meaning and certainly don’t get the impression that you lack the intellectual resources to do so yourself, should you desire. Agreement, of course, is a different matter.
I will make these observations:
Evidence of a break in increases p(staged break in).
Evidence that the break in was staged increases p(guilt).
One line of reasoning is this:
Evidence of a break in increases p(a break in was staged).
Evidence that a break in was staged increases p(guilt).
There is evidence of a break in.
Therefore, the evidence of a break in increases p(guilt).
This does not follow. Evidence of a break in decreases p(guilt). That is precisely why someone would have motive to stage a break in! Anyone who attempted to increase the extent to which the above fallacious reasoning was applied would be doing something I disapproved of strongly.
“The house has been reduced to a pile of charred debris → There was a fire.
The house has been reduced to a pile of charred debris → There was arson. ”
Well, what if a house has been reduced to a pile of charred debris and traces of some volatile flammable liquid are found there? It seems to me that by Anna’s reasoning, it would be a “leap” to say that this is evidence of arson. And yet most reasonable people would agree that this is evidence of arson.
Anyway, I would appreciate it if you would assume I am trying to discuss this in good faith.
“One line of reasoning is this:
Evidence of a break in increases p(a break in was staged).
Evidence that a break in was staged increases p(guilt).
There is evidence of a break in.
Therefore, the evidence of a break in increases p(guilt). ”
I’m not sure that anyone is making that argument here. At any rate, I am not.
Well, what if a house has been reduced to a pile of charred debris and traces of some volatile flammable liquid are found there? It seems to me that by Anna’s reasoning, it would be a “leap” to say that this is evidence of arson.
That would be evidence of arson. Anna’s reasoning would not call this a leap. As a reminder, the position of Anna’s that you were refuting in this branch of comments is this:
To have evidence of a break-in is different than having evidence of a staged break-in. Since there is evidence of a break-in, but not any that would say it was staged, there is evidence of an invented idea of a staged break-in.
You disagree elsewhere with the premise but here you are arguing against, and misunderstanding (whether motivated or not), the argument.
Then again I do not understand Anna’s distinction. If there is a ransacked room but no valuables are missing, even though those valuables were in plain view, that is evidence of staging. In the same way, a burned house with traces of volatile flammables present is evidence of arson. In either case, it’s easy to explain away the evidence in a way which is consistent with some other conclusion. But in either case, the evidence raises the probability of the conclusion.
“As a reminder, the position of Anna’s that you were refuting in this branch of comments is this:”
Would you mind pointing me to the post where I attempt to refute this? TIA
Would you mind pointing me to the post where I attempt to refute this? TIA
This thing that you did not attempt to refute. Hold that in your mind. Now, consider the thing that you didn’t understand. Put the thing that you didn’t refute in where the thing you didn’t understand was. You can now comment on Anna’s point in ‘good faith’.
That’s completely contradictory to your earlier statements. Before you explicitly said that that the arson example was NOT a leap by Anna’s standards.
And yet the staging example IS a “leap” by Anna’s standards.
And yet there are no fundamental differences between the two examples, according to you.
“If you are interested in understanding the point ”
I am interested in understanding the point. And now the problem has become obvious: Your (apparent) position is self-contradictory.
“I will not engage further.”
It’s your choice, but I think it would be better for you to just acknowledge the contradiction in your position (actually Anna’s position as explained by you) rather than pretend to yourself that I am being disingenous.
A good clarification and I’ll inject “the part of Anna’s position in this branch”.
That’s completely contradictory to your earlier statements. Before you explicitly said that that the arson example was NOT a leap by Anna’s standards.
You are wrong. I distinguish the acceptance of the premise from the validity of the intuitive leap to a particular conclusion.
Your (apparent) position is self-contradictory.
My position is highly specific, self contained, without self contradictions and really not even particularly novel.
I think it would be better for you to just acknowledge the contradiction in your position (actually Anna’s position as explained by you) rather than pretend to yourself that I am being disingenous.
My description now would be far less complementary than that.
“I will not engage further.”
I hereby lower the confidence I place in my predictions of what I may post in the future. My intuition appears to be founded on an incomplete model of likely responses of others.
Sez I: Well, what if a house has been reduced to a pile of charred debris and traces of some volatile flammable liquid are found there? It seems to me that by Anna’s reasoning, it would be a “leap” to say that this is evidence of arson.
Sez you: That would be evidence of arson. Anna’s reasoning would not call this a leap.
Clearly you were saying that the Arson example is not a leap by Anna’s standards.
Next, an earlier exchange between me and Anna:
Sez I: Not really. For example, the ransacking of a room but the failure to take valuable items in plain view is evidence of a staging. Yes, there are other explanations for this evidence but that does not mean it’s not evidence of a staging.
Sez Anna: In terms of the rules of the post, it takes a leap to get to the idea of a staging.
So clearly the ransacking example is a “leap” by Anna’s standards.
And yet you yourself admitted just a few posts back that fundamentally there is no difference between the 2 situations. Do I need to quote you?
It’s completely clear that Anna’s position (as interpreted by you) is self-contradictory.
“My description now would be far less complementary than that.”
Respectfully, I would suggest to you that’s because of your own cognitive dissonance. Put simply, don’t shoot the messenger.
In terms of the rules of the post, it takes a leap to get to the idea of a staging. One has to infer it. Amanda’s DNA is not on the glass or the objects, anyway, even in the unlikely event that there was a staging.
“In terms of the rules of the post, it takes a leap to get to the idea of a staging. One has to infer it.”
Sorry, but I have no idea what this means. Interpreting evidence is always a matter of inference.
“Interpreting evidence is always a matter of inference.”
Without physical evidence of something, how do you, except by imagination, come up with an explanation? Logic of the situation, yes. But this forms a tautology in this case. She broke the window and staged a break-in (though there is no physical evidence that suggests this) because… why? Because… someone wants it to look like she did the crime. My point was that komponisto showed how you have to have a reason in the situation itself to suggest it. This theory of the staged break-in is being used as a reason to suspect Amanda. The reason to suspect Amanda of a staged break-in is that more evidence is needed to implicate her in the crime. To say that “if Amanda staged a break-in, it would implicate her” may be true, but it would also be true of anyone. It could equally be true of the other two roommates, for example. The only thing that made Amanda stand out in this regard is that she was there first and that someone read into her behavior as significant.
This is how it seems to me.
“The reason to suspect Amanda of a staged break-in is that more evidence is needed to implicate her in the crime.”
That’s one reason. A better reason to suspect Amanda of a staged break-in is to note that there is in fact evidence of a staged break-in and to observe that (1) it’s mainly somebody who was closely associated with the victim who would have had a motive to do such a thing; and (2) Knox had a good opportunity to do so.
“only thing that made Amanda stand out in this regard ”
stand out compared to whom?
I find this hard to believe, particularly after the multiple explanations given to you. Even if these multiple explanations that leave open technicalities for exploitation by a reader who does not desire comprehension. I get the impression that you are being disingenuous. If not, please reread the grandparent again assuming the sentence “One has to infer it.” was removed.
“I find this hard to believe, particularly after the multiple explanations given to you.”
There’s no way to prove it. But let’s do this:
Please give me a couple of examples of evidence and (possible) conclusions which “require a leap” as well as a couple of examples of evidence and (possible) conclusions which do NOT “require a leap.”
That should make things clearer.
The house has been reduced to a pile of charred debris → There was a fire.
The house has been reduced to a pile of charred debris → There was arson.
Anna would obviously call 2) a leap but not 1). I am aware that a similar process of inference is involved, differing only by degree and yet I am still able to grasp what Anna is trying to say. That Anna has explained what she is trying to say multiple times helps, as does my IQ. Yet I don’t think either of these things are required to get at least some idea of the intended meaning and certainly don’t get the impression that you lack the intellectual resources to do so yourself, should you desire. Agreement, of course, is a different matter.
I will make these observations:
Evidence of a break in increases p(staged break in).
Evidence that the break in was staged increases p(guilt).
One line of reasoning is this:
Evidence of a break in increases p(a break in was staged).
Evidence that a break in was staged increases p(guilt).
There is evidence of a break in.
Therefore, the evidence of a break in increases p(guilt).
This does not follow. Evidence of a break in decreases p(guilt). That is precisely why someone would have motive to stage a break in! Anyone who attempted to increase the extent to which the above fallacious reasoning was applied would be doing something I disapproved of strongly.
“The house has been reduced to a pile of charred debris → There was a fire. The house has been reduced to a pile of charred debris → There was arson. ”
Well, what if a house has been reduced to a pile of charred debris and traces of some volatile flammable liquid are found there? It seems to me that by Anna’s reasoning, it would be a “leap” to say that this is evidence of arson. And yet most reasonable people would agree that this is evidence of arson.
Anyway, I would appreciate it if you would assume I am trying to discuss this in good faith.
“One line of reasoning is this:
Evidence of a break in increases p(a break in was staged). Evidence that a break in was staged increases p(guilt). There is evidence of a break in. Therefore, the evidence of a break in increases p(guilt). ”
I’m not sure that anyone is making that argument here. At any rate, I am not.
That would be evidence of arson. Anna’s reasoning would not call this a leap. As a reminder, the position of Anna’s that you were refuting in this branch of comments is this:
You disagree elsewhere with the premise but here you are arguing against, and misunderstanding (whether motivated or not), the argument.
“That would be evidence of arson”
Then again I do not understand Anna’s distinction. If there is a ransacked room but no valuables are missing, even though those valuables were in plain view, that is evidence of staging. In the same way, a burned house with traces of volatile flammables present is evidence of arson. In either case, it’s easy to explain away the evidence in a way which is consistent with some other conclusion. But in either case, the evidence raises the probability of the conclusion.
“As a reminder, the position of Anna’s that you were refuting in this branch of comments is this:”
Would you mind pointing me to the post where I attempt to refute this? TIA
This thing that you did not attempt to refute. Hold that in your mind. Now, consider the thing that you didn’t understand. Put the thing that you didn’t refute in where the thing you didn’t understand was. You can now comment on Anna’s point in ‘good faith’.
I have no idea what your point is. Let’s do it this way:
Please explain to me the fundamental difference between the following 2 claims :
(1) If there is a ransacked room but no valuables are missing, even though those valuables were in plain view, that is evidence of staging; and
(2) a burned house with traces of volatile flammables present is evidence of arson.
None.
If you are interested in understanding the point being made then there is more than enough information available to you. I will not engage further.
“None.”
That’s completely contradictory to your earlier statements. Before you explicitly said that that the arson example was NOT a leap by Anna’s standards.
And yet the staging example IS a “leap” by Anna’s standards.
And yet there are no fundamental differences between the two examples, according to you.
“If you are interested in understanding the point ”
I am interested in understanding the point. And now the problem has become obvious: Your (apparent) position is self-contradictory.
“I will not engage further.”
It’s your choice, but I think it would be better for you to just acknowledge the contradiction in your position (actually Anna’s position as explained by you) rather than pretend to yourself that I am being disingenous.
A good clarification and I’ll inject “the part of Anna’s position in this branch”.
You are wrong. I distinguish the acceptance of the premise from the validity of the intuitive leap to a particular conclusion.
My position is highly specific, self contained, without self contradictions and really not even particularly novel.
My description now would be far less complementary than that.
I hereby lower the confidence I place in my predictions of what I may post in the future. My intuition appears to be founded on an incomplete model of likely responses of others.
“You are wrong.”
Lol, that’s nonsense. Here is our exchange:
Sez I: Well, what if a house has been reduced to a pile of charred debris and traces of some volatile flammable liquid are found there? It seems to me that by Anna’s reasoning, it would be a “leap” to say that this is evidence of arson.
Sez you: That would be evidence of arson. Anna’s reasoning would not call this a leap.
Clearly you were saying that the Arson example is not a leap by Anna’s standards.
Next, an earlier exchange between me and Anna:
Sez I: Not really. For example, the ransacking of a room but the failure to take valuable items in plain view is evidence of a staging. Yes, there are other explanations for this evidence but that does not mean it’s not evidence of a staging.
Sez Anna: In terms of the rules of the post, it takes a leap to get to the idea of a staging.
So clearly the ransacking example is a “leap” by Anna’s standards.
And yet you yourself admitted just a few posts back that fundamentally there is no difference between the 2 situations. Do I need to quote you?
It’s completely clear that Anna’s position (as interpreted by you) is self-contradictory.
“My description now would be far less complementary than that.”
Respectfully, I would suggest to you that’s because of your own cognitive dissonance. Put simply, don’t shoot the messenger.