I think a substantial part of why brazil is getting a poor reception here is that he’s trying to treat this debate as if he’s cross examining witnesses in order to persuade a jury, but the question of what is liable to persuade a jury is very different from what establishes a proposition as more or less likely. In general the population of this site is well aware of the sort of rhetorical techniques which can be used to convince people more effectively without introducing more valid evidence, and have a dim view of having them used on them, particularly in a way that’s so transparent as to come across as patronizing.
Also, I think I’m being passive aggressive by posting this in response to your comment when you’re not the one who has any need to read it, but at this point I’d rather be passive aggressive if it means less risk of getting sucked back into a debate with brazil.
I agree that some part of the negative response to brazil is his reliance on Dark Arts persuasion techniques.
But I think the bigger part of the negative response is his refusal to lay out and defend what he actually thinks. It has become quite aggravating.
In law, it is always possible to create a coherent counter-argument by changing the method of analysis. Appealing to the purpose of a rule can easily lead to a more favorable result. If not, then the literal text may be more favorable. Etc. But law is seldom concerned with your true rejection because it is generally quite obvious (i.e. “I don’t want to comply with that regulation” or “I don’t want to go to prison”).
But we genuinely want to reach better understanding, so generating coherent counter-arguments to our points gets really annoying when the speaker doesn’t actually believe the counter-argument. If brazil had a theory and presented it coherently, he would not give the impression that he was trying to yank our chains.
I agree that some part of the negative response to brazil is his reliance on Dark Arts persuasion techniques.
But I think the bigger part of the negative response is his refusal to lay out and defend what he actually thinks. It has become quite aggravating.
I agree that it’s aggravating, and I called him out on it earlier myself, but I think it’s also a rhetorical technique. By not saying what he thinks straight out, and continually asking more questions, brazil can wait for his interlocutor to produce an answer he can hold up as damning and use that as an excuse to dismiss their whole case. It’s a good way to convince a jury to discount someone’s testimony, but very bad for resolving questions of evidence.
You realize that cross-examination is about putting your words in the witness’s mouth, right?
Not necessarily. Sometimes more open-ended questions are appropriate.
Questions on cross-examination are really just sentences. Isn’t that correct?
No.
Each question should articulate a point, shouldn’t it?
Not necessarily.
That point should be clear. Is that a yes? In short, you are trying to show that the witness agrees with the point that you already think is true. Isn’t that correct?
Again, not necessarily.
Moving on. Do you recall our earlier discussion about arguing motions before a judge?
Yes, I think so.
Would you agree that your goal in the motion hearing is to persuade the court that your side of the argument has merit?
Yes.
Regardless of the merits, being rude to the judge would probably not convince the judge to rule in your favor, right?
Agree.
The judge would probably not be happy if you attempted to cross examine her, would she?
I would say it depends on the judge, but generally not.
It would be rude? A little bit passive-aggressive?
I’m not sure “rude” (ETA: or “passive-aggressive”) is the right word, but it’s usually not done.
No further questions.
Ok, my turn now:
Do you agree that it is sometimes very effective to approach a debate by using questions, or to use questions within a debate, either to get to the nub of a dispute or to highlight a critical issue which you adversary may be missing?
If you aren’t trying to make a point, but only to nitpick others, we’re done.
If somebody is making a point, it doesn’t necessarily follow that each and every question they ask articulates a point. For example, they might be nailing down the other side’s position. If you want to include that in “making a point,” then yes, I would agree with you that each question should make a point.
Now please answer my question:
Do you agree that it is sometimes very effective to approach a debate by using questions, or to use questions within a debate, either to get to the nub of a dispute or to highlight a critical issue which you adversary may be missing?
In football (American version), teams will sometimes have a change-of-pace running back. As opposes to the starting running back (A), the change-of-pace back (B) runs with a very different style. Often A is a “power” back, while B is a “speed” back.
The whole purpose of B is to go into the game and take advantage of some defensive tendency in dealing with A. Maybe B makes a huge run. Or maybe the defense over-corrects and A makes some big plays when he comes back into the game. But if your team’s only backs run change-of-pace style, there are two basic possibilities. Maybe your back is an incredible talent. But more likely, your running game is not very good.
To deconstruct the metaphor, statements are A and questions are B. Questions can be incredible. But usually they barely rise to the level of nitpicking. To be clear, that’s a general statement about questions, not directed at anyone in particular.
But if your debate tactics do not rely on statements, then your debate tactics are unlikely to persuade. That’s the point I was making about briefs. And your questions are not incredible. In fact, they would barely function as change-of-pace even if you relied on statements. The tactics you consistently choose are unlikely to work, so it is a fair question to ask whether I correctly understand your goal.
Anyway, if I have the time I will put together a blog post laying out what I think are the most important pieces of evidence and Knox (and Sollecito).
But if your debate tactics do not rely on statements, then your debate tactics are unlikely to persuade
Putting aside the issue of persuasion, do you agree that a simple series of questions can sometimes demonstrate that a position is contradictory; that it doesn’t add up, so to speak?
Is the point you are making that even if I demonstrate something using questions, it’s less persuasive since it annoys people?
I can’t put persuasion to the side. That’s the whole point.
Do you dispute that asking questions is sometimes an effective way of getting to the nub of an issue and/or focusing attention on a critical issue?
Getting to the nub of the issue is a tool in persuasion. But it is not the most important tool, and it isn’t close. When you are debating the naive, getting to the nub of the issue might be most of the work, but that doesn’t make it most important.
Is the point you are making that even if I demonstrate something using questions, it’s less persuasive since it annoys people?
You say the purpose of asking questions is to get to the nub of the issue. I assert that we have gotten to the nub of the issue of Knox and Sollecito’s guilt (i.e. the strength of the evidence). If you think that is not the nub, then you are implying that we are naive.
In other circumstances, that would be quite an insult. But here, we are trying to be Less Wrong. So show us where we are wrong. All your questions do is continue to assert that we are wrong without showing why you think that is true.
Anyway, if I have the time I will put together a blog post laying out what I think are the most important pieces of evidence and Knox (and Sollecito).
That would be fantastic because it would give me a chance to see what ways I might be wrong.
I can’t put persuasion to the side. That’s the whole point.
Getting to the nub of the issue is a tool in persuasion.
I disagree; the point is to find truth, and getting to the nub of the issue (which can often mean “finding the most basic point of disagreement”) is a valuable tool to that end.
Edited to add: In this particular case, where our beliefs on this issue have little opportunity to usefully direct our action, the whole point is to find flaws in our reasoning that drive us away from truth, so we can learn to correct them in more meaningful situations.
I agree that I bundled a number of concepts into “persuasion.” To make it explicit, I used “persuasion” to mean trying to change another person’s mind. Since I aspire to practice the Light Arts, that meant moving the other person’s belief towards truth.
Edited to add: In this particular case, where our beliefs on this issue have little opportunity to usefully direct our action, the whole point is to find flaws in our reasoning that drive us away from truth, so we can learn to correct them in more meaningful situations.
Exactly. Well said. I hope to learn how I err by observing how I fail to persuade.
I don’t mean to suggest that this is never an appropriate approach; I object to your suggestion that this is the only appropriate approach (and in particular in a situation like this, where it is that approach that seems to be breaking down).
It’s not that I disagree with you, so much as I don’t understand.
I could make lots of concessions about how the point you originally quoted is too simplistic. I suspect that you have a particular caveat in mind, and I suspect that I would agree with it.
I made the original statement in the context of explaining to brazil why he’s coming off like a troll.
I can’t put persuasion to the side. That’s the whole point.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true, depending on what you mean by “persuasion” Because it sounds like you might be making the argument that even if I am demonstrating my points effectively, I am not persuading anyone because I am annoying.
Anyway, my question was not komponisto-disingenous. i.e. I honestly would like an answer.
Do you dispute that asking questions is sometimes an effective way of getting to the nub of an issue and/or focusing attention on a critical issue?
It really is a simple yes or no question.
When you are debating the naive, getting to the nub of the issue might be most of the work, but that doesn’t make it most important.
Even assuming that’s true, so what? It’s not an answer to my question.
You say the purpose of asking questions is to get to the nub of the issue.
And also to highlight critical issues.
I assert that we have gotten to the nub of the issue of Knox and Sollecito’s guilt (i.e. the strength of the evidence).
That’s not true at all. “the strength of the evidence” is composed of dozens of sub-issues. For example, the question of the time of death based on the state of Kercher’s digestive system.
All your questions do is continue to assert that we are wrong without showing why you think that is true.
That’s not true either. My questions have shown that various people are unfamiliar with the important facts concerning the case.
I do agree it would be better (in terms of arguing for Knox’s guilt) if I laid out those important facts and I will do so (ETA: In a blog post) if I have the time. But there is also an issue of economy. I’m not thrilled about spending the time to educate people about the case if they have not done their basic homework. Making my case by asking questions forces people to do the same simple research I have done, such as reading a few posts from the anti-Knox site which was linked in the very first thread.
I will however lay out the case on a side issue right here and now:
komponisto asserted in another post as follows:
Kercher had both a full stomach and an empty duodenum at death, and thus almost certainly died before 9:30 pm, while Sollecito’s computer was in use at his apartment.
I was a bit surprised to see such a convincing-sounding argument which I had not heard before, so I decided to look into it. What I found is this:
According to various sources, Sollecito’s computer use ended at 9:10 not 9:30.
According to the sentencing report, Sollecito’s expert testified (based on the state of Kercher’s digestive system) that the time of death was between 9:30 and 10:30.
According to the sentencing report, the prosecution expert testified (based on the state of Kercher’s digestive system) that the time of death was as late as midnight.
It seems unlikely to me that the sentencing report would flat out lie about the expert testimony. It also seems unlikely that Sollecito’s expert would testify that the time of death could have been as late as 10:30 if there was solid evidence that the time of death was almost certainly before 9:30pm.
My conclusion is that komponisto is likely the victim of serious confirmation bias.
At the same time, I myself will concede that if his underlying assertions about the computer use and time of death are correct, I will need to re-evaluate my own probability estimate.
I think that dlthomas made an excellent point. Specifically, there are lots of goals each of us could be trying to achieve. You could be trying to cause us to have truer beliefs. You could be trying to understand your though processes and how they might err. Or some other goal.
I do agree it would be better (in terms of arguing for Knox’s guilt) if I laid out those important facts and I will do so if I have the time. But there is also an issue of economy. I’m not thrilled about spending the time to educate people about the case if they have not done their basic homework. Making my case by asking questions forces people to do the same simple research I have done, such as reading a few posts from the anti-Knox site which was linked in the very first thread.
If you cannot achieve your goals because LessWrong is incompatible with them, or the goals are incompatible with LessWrong, then it is perfectly rational for you to spend you time elsewhere. If so, I’m sorry that you were not able to achieve you goals. (As an aside, you have very high standards for an internet discussion if you expect us to do significant research beyond the posts on this site. I like high standards, but seldom live up to them).
Do you dispute that asking questions is sometimes an effective way of getting to the nub of an issue and/or focusing attention on a critical issue?
First, this isn’t a simple yes or no question because you have acquired a reputation for trying to be avoid the issues. That said, lots of things help focus a discussion on the critical issues. Questions are one of those things. But your questions did not seem to have this goal.
I assert that we have gotten to the nub of the issue of Knox and Sollecito’s guilt (i.e. the strength of the evidence).
That’s not true at all. “the strength of the evidence” is composed of dozens of sub-issues. For example, the question of the time of death based on the state of Kercher’s digestive system.
There are lots of basis of guilt articulated that have nothing to do with evidence. Like asserting that Knox’s nationality, age, gender, or status as a college student living abroad have any relevance to her guilt.
Your marshaling of facts about the time of death vs. Sollecito’s computer usage is excellent, in that it provides a real basis for discussion. But is it your true rejection? You pointed out it was a side issue, and even if the prosecution expert was entirely correct, it would only show the evidence was consistent with guilt and would not be [ETA: very strong] evidence of guilt.
it would only show the evidence was consistent with guilt and would not be evidence of guilt.
Most of your points seem good. However, this stood out. Consistency is from a Bayesian perspective evidence (albeit weak evidence) of guilt since it is more likely to occur in the guilty situation than in the non-guilty situation.
What stood out to me was that TimS pretty much missed the point of my argument on this issue. Which was that komponisto seems to be suffering from a serious case of confirmation bias.
The rational thing for komponisto to do would be to verify the points I made, and assuming they check out, thank me for helping him to become less wrong and then try to completely re-think the case. komponisto needs to realize that if he is dead wrong about an issue which he believes to be of central importance, it calls into question all of his thinking about the case, and in particular whether he is adequately scrutinizing the pro-Knox arguments and evidence and adequately considering the anti-Knox arguments (and evidence).
Also, TimS needs to ask himself why he missed the point of my argument. Was it just an oversight? Or is he subconsciously reluctant to go against the Captain of the Blue Team?
I thought you didn’t believe in referencing motivated cognition to determine truth.
Because if we were just weighing the amount of motivated cognition, the Italian prosecutor has engaged in substantially more than komponisto. The low-count DNA testing is nonsense, defense investigators showed a break-in was possible after prosecutors asserted otherwise, and the prosecution theory revolved around Satanism and orgies. At this point, nothing about stomach digestion and computer use timing could persuade me that guilt was more likely that innocence. In short, komponisto could be totally wrong about it and it won’t significantly affect my opinion of the ultimate issue.
I thought you didn’t believe in referencing motivated cognition to determine truth.
If you think so, then you misread my post.
Because if we were just weighing the amount of motivated cognition, the Italian prosecutor has engaged in substantially more than komponisto.
Let’s assume for the moment that’s true. In that case, if the Italian prosecutor were posting here, then just like komponisto, the rational thing for him to do would be to re-think the case.
ETA: Since you seem to keep missing the point of my post, I think it will be helpful to focus things with a few of those dreaded “questions.”
(1) Do you agree that a few posts back, komponisto posted an argument which seems to be dead wrong?
(2) Do you agree that this argument seems to be pretty important to komponisto?
(3) Do you agree that komponisto seems to have fallen victim to confirmation bias? i.e. he failed to scrutinize a pro-Knox argument most likely because he believes so strongly in her innocence?
(4) Do you agree that this calls into question all of komponisto’s thinking about the case?
(5) Do you agree that komponisto should thank me for helping to make him less wrong?
(6) And if komponisto instead writes me off as a “clack,” isn’t that just more of his bias at work?
(7) Finally, if the Italian prosecutor is more biased than komponisto, but in the opposite direction, do you agree it does not change the fact that komponisto himself is biased?
If you cannot achieve your goals because LessWrong is incompatible with them, or the goals are incompatible with LessWrong, then it is perfectly rational for you to spend you time elsewhere.
I agree, but again, so what? Isn’t what you are saying pretty much obvious? Why are you telling me this?
As an aside, you have very high standards for an internet discussion if you expect us to do significant research beyond the posts on this site
Well, the very first thread on the subject invited participants to read somewhat detailed summaries of the arguments (and evidence) for and against Knox’s guilt. Anyway, if you assert a very low probability of Knox’s guilt (which many people here do) (ETA: or a very high probability of Knox’s guilt), then either (1) you have done the research yourself and reached some conclusion which may or may not be justified; (2) you are relying on other posts here; or (3) you are fooling yourself. If number 2 is the case, then my point about komponisto should give you serious pause.
First, this isn’t a simple yes or no question because you have acquired a reputation for trying to be avoid the issues.
I don’t see what my reputation has to do with it. Either my assertion about questions being useful is true or it isn’t.
But your questions did not seem to have this goal.
Can you give me an example of a question I asked, and what you feel the actual goal of the question was?
There are lots of basis of guilt articulated that have nothing to do with evidence.
So what? It doesn’t change the fact that “strength of the evidence”—as a general proposition—is not the nub of the issue. To put it metaphorically, you are missing the trees for the forest.
You pointed out it was a side issue, and even if the prosecution expert was entirely correct, it would only show the evidence was consistent with guilt and would not be evidence of guilt.
Of course, but you need to understand the point of my argument—which is that komponisto seems to have royally screwed up. If you are basing your opinion about guilt or innocence on other peoples posts here—that should give you a lot of pause.
Cross-examination
You realize that cross-examination is about putting your words in the witness’s mouth, right?
Questions on cross-examination are really just sentences. Isn’t that correct?
Each question should articulate a point, shouldn’t it?
That point should be clear. Is that a yes?
In short, you are trying to show that the witness agrees with the point that you already think is true. Isn’t that correct?
So, a leading question that doesn’t clearly articulate what you are asserting is a failed question, isn’t it?
Moving on. Do you recall our earlier discussion about arguing motions before a judge?
Would you agree that your goal in the motion hearing is to persuade the court that your side of the argument has merit?
Regardless of the merits, being rude to the judge would probably not convince the judge to rule in your favor, right?
The judge would probably not be happy if you attempted to cross examine her, would she?
It would be rude? A little bit passive-aggressive?
No further questions.
I think a substantial part of why brazil is getting a poor reception here is that he’s trying to treat this debate as if he’s cross examining witnesses in order to persuade a jury, but the question of what is liable to persuade a jury is very different from what establishes a proposition as more or less likely. In general the population of this site is well aware of the sort of rhetorical techniques which can be used to convince people more effectively without introducing more valid evidence, and have a dim view of having them used on them, particularly in a way that’s so transparent as to come across as patronizing.
Also, I think I’m being passive aggressive by posting this in response to your comment when you’re not the one who has any need to read it, but at this point I’d rather be passive aggressive if it means less risk of getting sucked back into a debate with brazil.
I agree that some part of the negative response to brazil is his reliance on Dark Arts persuasion techniques.
But I think the bigger part of the negative response is his refusal to lay out and defend what he actually thinks. It has become quite aggravating.
In law, it is always possible to create a coherent counter-argument by changing the method of analysis. Appealing to the purpose of a rule can easily lead to a more favorable result. If not, then the literal text may be more favorable. Etc. But law is seldom concerned with your true rejection because it is generally quite obvious (i.e. “I don’t want to comply with that regulation” or “I don’t want to go to prison”).
But we genuinely want to reach better understanding, so generating coherent counter-arguments to our points gets really annoying when the speaker doesn’t actually believe the counter-argument. If brazil had a theory and presented it coherently, he would not give the impression that he was trying to yank our chains.
I agree that it’s aggravating, and I called him out on it earlier myself, but I think it’s also a rhetorical technique. By not saying what he thinks straight out, and continually asking more questions, brazil can wait for his interlocutor to produce an answer he can hold up as damning and use that as an excuse to dismiss their whole case. It’s a good way to convince a jury to discount someone’s testimony, but very bad for resolving questions of evidence.
Not necessarily. Sometimes more open-ended questions are appropriate.
No.
Not necessarily.
Again, not necessarily.
Yes, I think so.
Yes.
Agree.
I would say it depends on the judge, but generally not.
I’m not sure “rude” (ETA: or “passive-aggressive”) is the right word, but it’s usually not done.
Ok, my turn now:
Do you agree that it is sometimes very effective to approach a debate by using questions, or to use questions within a debate, either to get to the nub of a dispute or to highlight a critical issue which you adversary may be missing?
A simple yes or no will do :)
If you aren’t trying to make a point, but only to nitpick others, we’re done.
If somebody is making a point, it doesn’t necessarily follow that each and every question they ask articulates a point. For example, they might be nailing down the other side’s position. If you want to include that in “making a point,” then yes, I would agree with you that each question should make a point.
Now please answer my question:
Do you agree that it is sometimes very effective to approach a debate by using questions, or to use questions within a debate, either to get to the nub of a dispute or to highlight a critical issue which you adversary may be missing?
In football (American version), teams will sometimes have a change-of-pace running back. As opposes to the starting running back (A), the change-of-pace back (B) runs with a very different style. Often A is a “power” back, while B is a “speed” back.
The whole purpose of B is to go into the game and take advantage of some defensive tendency in dealing with A. Maybe B makes a huge run. Or maybe the defense over-corrects and A makes some big plays when he comes back into the game. But if your team’s only backs run change-of-pace style, there are two basic possibilities. Maybe your back is an incredible talent. But more likely, your running game is not very good.
To deconstruct the metaphor, statements are A and questions are B. Questions can be incredible. But usually they barely rise to the level of nitpicking. To be clear, that’s a general statement about questions, not directed at anyone in particular.
But if your debate tactics do not rely on statements, then your debate tactics are unlikely to persuade. That’s the point I was making about briefs. And your questions are not incredible. In fact, they would barely function as change-of-pace even if you relied on statements. The tactics you consistently choose are unlikely to work, so it is a fair question to ask whether I correctly understand your goal.
That would be fantastic
Putting aside the issue of persuasion, do you agree that a simple series of questions can sometimes demonstrate that a position is contradictory; that it doesn’t add up, so to speak?
Is the point you are making that even if I demonstrate something using questions, it’s less persuasive since it annoys people?
I can’t put persuasion to the side. That’s the whole point.
Getting to the nub of the issue is a tool in persuasion. But it is not the most important tool, and it isn’t close. When you are debating the naive, getting to the nub of the issue might be most of the work, but that doesn’t make it most important.
You say the purpose of asking questions is to get to the nub of the issue. I assert that we have gotten to the nub of the issue of Knox and Sollecito’s guilt (i.e. the strength of the evidence). If you think that is not the nub, then you are implying that we are naive.
In other circumstances, that would be quite an insult. But here, we are trying to be Less Wrong. So show us where we are wrong. All your questions do is continue to assert that we are wrong without showing why you think that is true.
That would be fantastic because it would give me a chance to see what ways I might be wrong.
I disagree; the point is to find truth, and getting to the nub of the issue (which can often mean “finding the most basic point of disagreement”) is a valuable tool to that end.
Edited to add: In this particular case, where our beliefs on this issue have little opportunity to usefully direct our action, the whole point is to find flaws in our reasoning that drive us away from truth, so we can learn to correct them in more meaningful situations.
I agree that I bundled a number of concepts into “persuasion.” To make it explicit, I used “persuasion” to mean trying to change another person’s mind. Since I aspire to practice the Light Arts, that meant moving the other person’s belief towards truth.
Exactly. Well said. I hope to learn how I err by observing how I fail to persuade.
I don’t mean to suggest that this is never an appropriate approach; I object to your suggestion that this is the only appropriate approach (and in particular in a situation like this, where it is that approach that seems to be breaking down).
It’s not that I disagree with you, so much as I don’t understand.
I could make lots of concessions about how the point you originally quoted is too simplistic. I suspect that you have a particular caveat in mind, and I suspect that I would agree with it.
I made the original statement in the context of explaining to brazil why he’s coming off like a troll.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true, depending on what you mean by “persuasion” Because it sounds like you might be making the argument that even if I am demonstrating my points effectively, I am not persuading anyone because I am annoying.
Anyway, my question was not komponisto-disingenous. i.e. I honestly would like an answer.
Do you dispute that asking questions is sometimes an effective way of getting to the nub of an issue and/or focusing attention on a critical issue?
It really is a simple yes or no question.
Even assuming that’s true, so what? It’s not an answer to my question.
And also to highlight critical issues.
That’s not true at all. “the strength of the evidence” is composed of dozens of sub-issues. For example, the question of the time of death based on the state of Kercher’s digestive system.
That’s not true either. My questions have shown that various people are unfamiliar with the important facts concerning the case.
I do agree it would be better (in terms of arguing for Knox’s guilt) if I laid out those important facts and I will do so (ETA: In a blog post) if I have the time. But there is also an issue of economy. I’m not thrilled about spending the time to educate people about the case if they have not done their basic homework. Making my case by asking questions forces people to do the same simple research I have done, such as reading a few posts from the anti-Knox site which was linked in the very first thread.
I will however lay out the case on a side issue right here and now:
komponisto asserted in another post as follows:
I was a bit surprised to see such a convincing-sounding argument which I had not heard before, so I decided to look into it. What I found is this:
According to various sources, Sollecito’s computer use ended at 9:10 not 9:30.
According to the sentencing report, Sollecito’s expert testified (based on the state of Kercher’s digestive system) that the time of death was between 9:30 and 10:30.
According to the sentencing report, the prosecution expert testified (based on the state of Kercher’s digestive system) that the time of death was as late as midnight.
It seems unlikely to me that the sentencing report would flat out lie about the expert testimony. It also seems unlikely that Sollecito’s expert would testify that the time of death could have been as late as 10:30 if there was solid evidence that the time of death was almost certainly before 9:30pm.
My conclusion is that komponisto is likely the victim of serious confirmation bias.
At the same time, I myself will concede that if his underlying assertions about the computer use and time of death are correct, I will need to re-evaluate my own probability estimate.
I think that dlthomas made an excellent point. Specifically, there are lots of goals each of us could be trying to achieve. You could be trying to cause us to have truer beliefs. You could be trying to understand your though processes and how they might err. Or some other goal.
If you cannot achieve your goals because LessWrong is incompatible with them, or the goals are incompatible with LessWrong, then it is perfectly rational for you to spend you time elsewhere. If so, I’m sorry that you were not able to achieve you goals. (As an aside, you have very high standards for an internet discussion if you expect us to do significant research beyond the posts on this site. I like high standards, but seldom live up to them).
First, this isn’t a simple yes or no question because you have acquired a reputation for trying to be avoid the issues. That said, lots of things help focus a discussion on the critical issues. Questions are one of those things. But your questions did not seem to have this goal.
There are lots of basis of guilt articulated that have nothing to do with evidence. Like asserting that Knox’s nationality, age, gender, or status as a college student living abroad have any relevance to her guilt.
Your marshaling of facts about the time of death vs. Sollecito’s computer usage is excellent, in that it provides a real basis for discussion. But is it your true rejection? You pointed out it was a side issue, and even if the prosecution expert was entirely correct, it would only show the evidence was consistent with guilt and would not be [ETA: very strong] evidence of guilt.
Most of your points seem good. However, this stood out. Consistency is from a Bayesian perspective evidence (albeit weak evidence) of guilt since it is more likely to occur in the guilty situation than in the non-guilty situation.
What stood out to me was that TimS pretty much missed the point of my argument on this issue. Which was that komponisto seems to be suffering from a serious case of confirmation bias.
The rational thing for komponisto to do would be to verify the points I made, and assuming they check out, thank me for helping him to become less wrong and then try to completely re-think the case. komponisto needs to realize that if he is dead wrong about an issue which he believes to be of central importance, it calls into question all of his thinking about the case, and in particular whether he is adequately scrutinizing the pro-Knox arguments and evidence and adequately considering the anti-Knox arguments (and evidence).
Also, TimS needs to ask himself why he missed the point of my argument. Was it just an oversight? Or is he subconsciously reluctant to go against the Captain of the Blue Team?
I thought you didn’t believe in referencing motivated cognition to determine truth.
Because if we were just weighing the amount of motivated cognition, the Italian prosecutor has engaged in substantially more than komponisto. The low-count DNA testing is nonsense, defense investigators showed a break-in was possible after prosecutors asserted otherwise, and the prosecution theory revolved around Satanism and orgies. At this point, nothing about stomach digestion and computer use timing could persuade me that guilt was more likely that innocence. In short, komponisto could be totally wrong about it and it won’t significantly affect my opinion of the ultimate issue.
If you think so, then you misread my post.
Let’s assume for the moment that’s true. In that case, if the Italian prosecutor were posting here, then just like komponisto, the rational thing for him to do would be to re-think the case.
ETA: Since you seem to keep missing the point of my post, I think it will be helpful to focus things with a few of those dreaded “questions.”
(1) Do you agree that a few posts back, komponisto posted an argument which seems to be dead wrong?
(2) Do you agree that this argument seems to be pretty important to komponisto?
(3) Do you agree that komponisto seems to have fallen victim to confirmation bias? i.e. he failed to scrutinize a pro-Knox argument most likely because he believes so strongly in her innocence?
(4) Do you agree that this calls into question all of komponisto’s thinking about the case?
(5) Do you agree that komponisto should thank me for helping to make him less wrong?
(6) And if komponisto instead writes me off as a “clack,” isn’t that just more of his bias at work?
(7) Finally, if the Italian prosecutor is more biased than komponisto, but in the opposite direction, do you agree it does not change the fact that komponisto himself is biased?
I agree, but again, so what? Isn’t what you are saying pretty much obvious? Why are you telling me this?
Well, the very first thread on the subject invited participants to read somewhat detailed summaries of the arguments (and evidence) for and against Knox’s guilt. Anyway, if you assert a very low probability of Knox’s guilt (which many people here do) (ETA: or a very high probability of Knox’s guilt), then either (1) you have done the research yourself and reached some conclusion which may or may not be justified; (2) you are relying on other posts here; or (3) you are fooling yourself. If number 2 is the case, then my point about komponisto should give you serious pause.
I don’t see what my reputation has to do with it. Either my assertion about questions being useful is true or it isn’t.
Can you give me an example of a question I asked, and what you feel the actual goal of the question was?
So what? It doesn’t change the fact that “strength of the evidence”—as a general proposition—is not the nub of the issue. To put it metaphorically, you are missing the trees for the forest.
Of course, but you need to understand the point of my argument—which is that komponisto seems to have royally screwed up. If you are basing your opinion about guilt or innocence on other peoples posts here—that should give you a lot of pause.