[I]t has been proven within the limits if modern science’s ability to prove anything, that there is not one trace of physical evidence that [some specific facts about a specific event].
This seems like ridiculous hyperbole—science has far more ability to “prove” things that are repeatable than unrepeatable.
This seems like ridiculous hyperbole—science has far more ability to “prove” things that are repeatable than unrepeatable.
You are completely correct.
In the spirit of constructing the best possible argument to engage with, I think we should run as if bigjeff5 had actually said exactly what he said, but appended to it “and the prior probability of the alleged crime having occurred as per the police theory is so incredibly low that nothing but physical evidence that Knox and Sollecito were involved in the murder should push our posterior probability into the >1% range”, or something similar.
I’d say there’s all sorts of non-physical evidence that would be sufficient to push our posterior probability of their guilt higher than that (insofar as any evidence in a materialistic universe can be said to be non-physical.) Email records between Knox, Sollecito and Guede discussing their plans to kill Kercher, for instance. Or if Knox or Sollecito had made statements about the circumstances of Kercher’s death which forensics corroborated which they could not plausibly have made without knowledge that would require them to have been there. Even just evidence of private meetings between Knox, Sollecito and Guede, combined with enough of the warning signs for a person likely to commit murder ought to boost the likelihood that they were complicit well over 1%.
It’s not that there aren’t possible forms of non physical evidence that would be adequate to establish a high likelihood for their guilt, it’s that such evidence is conspicuous in its absence.
I’d say there’s all sorts of non-physical evidence that would be sufficient to push our posterior probability of their guilt higher than that (insofar as any evidence in a materialistic universe can be said to be non-physical.) Email records between Knox, Sollecito and Guede discussing their plans to kill Kercher, for instance. Or if Knox or Sollecito had made statements about the circumstances of Kercher’s death which forensics corroborated which they could not plausibly have made without knowledge that would require them to have been there. Even just evidence of private meetings between Knox, Sollecito and Guede, combined with enough of the warning signs for a person likely to commit murder ought to boost the likelihood that they were complicit well over 1%
My intention was certainly to have recordings of Knox and Sollecito plotting to kill Meredith Kercher, email records of such an exchange, mobile phone calls placed to Rudy Guede and so on as physical evidence if any of them had existed. I class ones and zeroes on a hard drive or a magnetic imprint on a tape as physical evidence just as I count DNA as physical evidence.
Eyewitness evidence or police claims unsupported by physical evidence would be the kind of thing I intended to exclude by specifying physical evidence.
Nonetheless, the absence of any scientific evidence at all pointing towards guilt (when there was lots of scientific evidence taken) would still be significant evidence of absence of guilt, correct?
It’s not a proof but it is evidence. He’s challenging the 90%, which is perfectly fair under Bayesian reasoning. Because that evidence of absence of guilt is very significant, it would should shift your probabilities far more downward.
I did not mean to say, “there is no evidence of absence of guilt”, or even “there is not overwhelming evidence of absence of guilt”—not really having looked directly at evidence myself, it would be silly for me to weigh in either way. I was just objecting to the hyperbole: science’s ability to “prove” (or provide evidence for) the premise that Newtonian gravity approximately holds for speeds and masses typically involved in human activity on the surface of the earth seems much, much greater than sciences ability to “prove” (or provide evidence for) anything particular feature of a past event.
This seems like ridiculous hyperbole—science has far more ability to “prove” things that are repeatable than unrepeatable.
You are absolutely correct.
I should have said “anything of this nature”, my mistake.
You are completely correct.
In the spirit of constructing the best possible argument to engage with, I think we should run as if bigjeff5 had actually said exactly what he said, but appended to it “and the prior probability of the alleged crime having occurred as per the police theory is so incredibly low that nothing but physical evidence that Knox and Sollecito were involved in the murder should push our posterior probability into the >1% range”, or something similar.
I’d say there’s all sorts of non-physical evidence that would be sufficient to push our posterior probability of their guilt higher than that (insofar as any evidence in a materialistic universe can be said to be non-physical.) Email records between Knox, Sollecito and Guede discussing their plans to kill Kercher, for instance. Or if Knox or Sollecito had made statements about the circumstances of Kercher’s death which forensics corroborated which they could not plausibly have made without knowledge that would require them to have been there. Even just evidence of private meetings between Knox, Sollecito and Guede, combined with enough of the warning signs for a person likely to commit murder ought to boost the likelihood that they were complicit well over 1%.
It’s not that there aren’t possible forms of non physical evidence that would be adequate to establish a high likelihood for their guilt, it’s that such evidence is conspicuous in its absence.
My intention was certainly to have recordings of Knox and Sollecito plotting to kill Meredith Kercher, email records of such an exchange, mobile phone calls placed to Rudy Guede and so on as physical evidence if any of them had existed. I class ones and zeroes on a hard drive or a magnetic imprint on a tape as physical evidence just as I count DNA as physical evidence.
Eyewitness evidence or police claims unsupported by physical evidence would be the kind of thing I intended to exclude by specifying physical evidence.
I agree that the argument should proceed that way. I was only weighing in tangentially on the rhetoric.
Nonetheless, the absence of any scientific evidence at all pointing towards guilt (when there was lots of scientific evidence taken) would still be significant evidence of absence of guilt, correct?
It’s not a proof but it is evidence. He’s challenging the 90%, which is perfectly fair under Bayesian reasoning. Because that evidence of absence of guilt is very significant, it would should shift your probabilities far more downward.
I did not mean to say, “there is no evidence of absence of guilt”, or even “there is not overwhelming evidence of absence of guilt”—not really having looked directly at evidence myself, it would be silly for me to weigh in either way. I was just objecting to the hyperbole: science’s ability to “prove” (or provide evidence for) the premise that Newtonian gravity approximately holds for speeds and masses typically involved in human activity on the surface of the earth seems much, much greater than sciences ability to “prove” (or provide evidence for) anything particular feature of a past event.