I like the idea of capping the length of an admissible chain of hearsay, but whenever I hear about a rule like that, I always think of the risk that you’ll miss an obviously true conclusion just because the evidence wasn’t admissible. Of course, that’s a silly argument, since we have lots of such limits and they’re not something I disagree with.
The obvious solution to this entire debate is to teach people a basic understanding of practical probability, but I guess you work with what you’ve got...
Incidentally, is the title a deliberate play on “Lies, damn lies, and statistics”? I couldn’t work it out.
I think it’s just the standard “a thing, another thing, and yet one more additional thing”. A common species, of which “lies damned lies, and statistics” is another example.
I like the idea of capping the length of an admissible chain of hearsay, but whenever I hear about a rule like that, I always think of the risk that you’ll miss an obviously true conclusion just because the evidence wasn’t admissible. Of course, that’s a silly argument, since we have lots of such limits and they’re not something I disagree with.
The obvious solution to this entire debate is to teach people a basic understanding of practical probability, but I guess you work with what you’ve got...
Incidentally, is the title a deliberate play on “Lies, damn lies, and statistics”? I couldn’t work it out.
I think it’s just the standard “a thing, another thing, and yet one more additional thing”. A common species, of which “lies damned lies, and statistics” is another example.
But it’s a more specific pattern than that: “X, adjective X, and Scientific Term”.