We’re discussing a claim that someone convicted of murder has a 90-99% chance of being innocent. That could be true, but not merely because they used evidence other than DNA evidence.
Oh. Obviously P(Guilty | untested DNA evidence) doesn’t equal P(Guilty | no solid physical evidence of any kind & no motive & extensive physical evidence implicating someone else)… and I actually think .1 is too low a probability of Knox’s guilt. I was just pointing out that the mere fact that CSI has lead to some jurors expecting physical evidence does not mean that those jurors are more biased than those content to convict without physical evidence. If we have an evolved bias to over-emphasize social and behavioral evidence then it is perfectly possible that watching CSI compensates for a bias rather than creates one.
We’re discussing a claim that someone convicted of murder has a 90-99% chance of being innocent. That could be true, but not merely because they used evidence other than DNA evidence.
Oh. Obviously P(Guilty | untested DNA evidence) doesn’t equal P(Guilty | no solid physical evidence of any kind & no motive & extensive physical evidence implicating someone else)… and I actually think .1 is too low a probability of Knox’s guilt. I was just pointing out that the mere fact that CSI has lead to some jurors expecting physical evidence does not mean that those jurors are more biased than those content to convict without physical evidence. If we have an evolved bias to over-emphasize social and behavioral evidence then it is perfectly possible that watching CSI compensates for a bias rather than creates one.