Hmm… I’m a bit confused about what was supposed to be predicted here. Were we supposed to predict whether Knox would be convicted, or predict whether Knox actually committed a murder? If I had been involved in the original conversations, I would have assigned a very low probability to Knox’s actual guilt, but a higher probability to her being found guilty. One is a question that specifically pertains to Knox herself, and the other is a commentary on the state of the Italian justice system.
Short of a new oracle (like DNA was previously), we will never have any judgement which is reliable enough to convince both sides that the judgement is correct. So, this was not a case of predicting the legal outcome—you will notice I mentioned I got the appeal wrong—but rather a question of how and whether people have changed their probability since then. Did they increase their belief in her guilt? Decrease it? Leave it unchanged due to a complicated convergence of pro and anti evidence? This wasn’t an exercise ‘you guys made these predictions, they have been vindicated or falsified, please check your new calibration and ponder how to do better in the future’ but ‘so, what do you guys think now?’
The discussion has been a little more aggressive than I hoped for, but I still see changing opinions, which is healthy: it’d be strange if the passage of time didn’t change one’s belief at all!
Yes, it is extremely improbable that the evidences would approximately or exactly counterbalance but in fairness I had to mention it, else it wasn’t a complete breakdown (greater, less, equal).
Hmm… I’m a bit confused about what was supposed to be predicted here. Were we supposed to predict whether Knox would be convicted, or predict whether Knox actually committed a murder? If I had been involved in the original conversations, I would have assigned a very low probability to Knox’s actual guilt, but a higher probability to her being found guilty. One is a question that specifically pertains to Knox herself, and the other is a commentary on the state of the Italian justice system.
Short of a new oracle (like DNA was previously), we will never have any judgement which is reliable enough to convince both sides that the judgement is correct. So, this was not a case of predicting the legal outcome—you will notice I mentioned I got the appeal wrong—but rather a question of how and whether people have changed their probability since then. Did they increase their belief in her guilt? Decrease it? Leave it unchanged due to a complicated convergence of pro and anti evidence? This wasn’t an exercise ‘you guys made these predictions, they have been vindicated or falsified, please check your new calibration and ponder how to do better in the future’ but ‘so, what do you guys think now?’
The discussion has been a little more aggressive than I hoped for, but I still see changing opinions, which is healthy: it’d be strange if the passage of time didn’t change one’s belief at all!
For anyone who actually worked out figures before and after, this seems like it would be the least likely scenario.
Yes, it is extremely improbable that the evidences would approximately or exactly counterbalance but in fairness I had to mention it, else it wasn’t a complete breakdown (greater, less, equal).