So you are saying that there are only two choices: (1) privileging the hypothesis; and (2) substantially ruling it out?
In a word: yes.
The hypothesis in question has low prior probability, and hence is “substantially ruled out” by default, unless there is strong evidence pointing to it. In this case, there isn’t; people who think there is are, almost invariably, anchoring on the probability that they assigned (or that the investigators assigned) to Knox and Sollecito’s guilt before Guede was discovered.
If it’s not interesting to you, then probably you should not have tried to answer my question.
On the contrary, I inferred from your question (correctly) that you didn’t understand the point about the evidence against Guede exonerating Knox and Sollecito.
Here is the claim which was made:
Had this case occurred before DNA testing was available, Knox and Sollecito would most likely have been convicted, but a DNA test should have been sufficient to exonerate them.
[...]
Since Guede’s fingerprints were (apparently) found at the scene, extra DNA evidence which confirms his presence at the scene should not have much of an effect on anyone’s assessments of the likelihood of any conclusion.
Most likely, the person who made the above claim simply wasn’t aware of the fingerprint evidence (or, possibly, the difference between fingerprint evidence and DNA evidence). By the principle of charity, that shouldn’t have stopped you from understanding and addressing their real point, which was that Knox and Sollecito should have been dropped as suspects as soon as the physical evidence turned out to implicate Guede and not them.
Most likely, the person who made the above claim simply wasn’t aware of the fingerprint evidence (or, possibly, the difference between fingerprint evidence and DNA evidence).
I had, in fact, forgotten about the fingerprint evidence, but I stand by my claim that Knox and Sollecito would probably have been convicted prior to DNA testing, given that even with DNA testing they were only released on appeal, and with DNA testing we have a much higher burden of expectation of evidence to meet. To say that they probably would have been convicted does not and was not intended to mean that they should have been convicted given the state of evidence that would have been available in that case.
The hypothesis in question has low prior probability,
Prior to what? Prior to finding the evidence against Guede or prior to considering any evidence at all?
I inferred from your question (correctly) that you didn’t understand the point about the evidence against Guede exonerating Knox and Sollecito.
I do understand the point, I simply happen to disagree with you at the moment. Anyway, if you want to address a different issue from the one under discussion, it would be helpful if you made it clear from the beginning.
By the principle of charity, that shouldn’t have stopped you from understanding and addressing their real point, which was that Knox and Sollecito should have been dropped as suspects as soon as the physical evidence turned out to implicate Guede and not them.
I think that’s too much of a leap. Charity must be balanced with the principle that it’s often a mistake to try to put words in peoples’ mouths.
In a word: yes.
The hypothesis in question has low prior probability, and hence is “substantially ruled out” by default, unless there is strong evidence pointing to it. In this case, there isn’t; people who think there is are, almost invariably, anchoring on the probability that they assigned (or that the investigators assigned) to Knox and Sollecito’s guilt before Guede was discovered.
On the contrary, I inferred from your question (correctly) that you didn’t understand the point about the evidence against Guede exonerating Knox and Sollecito.
Most likely, the person who made the above claim simply wasn’t aware of the fingerprint evidence (or, possibly, the difference between fingerprint evidence and DNA evidence). By the principle of charity, that shouldn’t have stopped you from understanding and addressing their real point, which was that Knox and Sollecito should have been dropped as suspects as soon as the physical evidence turned out to implicate Guede and not them.
I had, in fact, forgotten about the fingerprint evidence, but I stand by my claim that Knox and Sollecito would probably have been convicted prior to DNA testing, given that even with DNA testing they were only released on appeal, and with DNA testing we have a much higher burden of expectation of evidence to meet. To say that they probably would have been convicted does not and was not intended to mean that they should have been convicted given the state of evidence that would have been available in that case.
Prior to what? Prior to finding the evidence against Guede or prior to considering any evidence at all?
I do understand the point, I simply happen to disagree with you at the moment. Anyway, if you want to address a different issue from the one under discussion, it would be helpful if you made it clear from the beginning.
I think that’s too much of a leap. Charity must be balanced with the principle that it’s often a mistake to try to put words in peoples’ mouths.