“effectively zero”, meaning “so small as to be utterly negligible”, is however.
Confusing the difference between utterly negligible non-zero probability and small non-zero probability that’s enough to pay attention to is an annoying but common fallacy. There should be a name for it already, does anyone know what it is?
I’m having a hard time thinking of evidence that would be stronger than the evidence against Hermione. Even if Harry saw her hex Malfoy with his own eyes, I wouldn’t put it past him to suspect he was memory charmed. It doesn’t seem like Harry is seriously considering the possibility that Hermione is actually guilty. Can you think of evidence that would cause him to raise the probability, not even to 50%, but to 5%?
And why does Harry believe in the innocence of Hermione? Take the outside view. It is the first crush of a child. Natural selection did not spit out such a thing as pure innocents.
There could be multiple witnesses, Harry could have seen it himself, there could be indications of premeditated anger at Malfoy (older than what the court legilimens found), or some reason why she would be extra angry at him.
Hermione knocks on the door of the Headmaster’s office, while Harry and Dumbledore are having a chat. “I thought you’d like to know,” she says, “I’m going to kill Draco Malfoy.” She then turns around and leaves. Harry laughs nervously, but Dumbledore looks worried. “We probably ought to follow her.”
They arrive at the trophy room just in time to see Hermione stun Malfoy and cast the blood-cooling charm on him. She turns around and sees Harry, and smiles. “Well, now you’re safe, Harry.”
The subsequent investigation reveals that, as a protest against Binn’s teaching, she’d been submitting plans of ways to kill Malfoy as her homework for months now, and then stopped a week ago, with the last one involving the blood-cooling charm.
What’s Harry’s probability that Hermione was the hand behind the dagger? (Or, to put it another way, is there enough evidence out there that’s stronger evidence for “Hermione did it of her own free will” than “Hermione was the pawn in someone else’s game” that could put Harry up to even 5% probaiblity that Hermione did it herself?)
Rabid defenders of the H.M.S. Harmony, I’d guess. Some of them thought Harry and Hermione were married in 81 in a creepy D/s ceremony.
EY has attracted them because there’s a ship tease or toy ship or whatever. And because maybe he’s a bit of a Harmonizer himself, as he had said he couldn’t get into the later books.
The downvotes are leaking away, though. So that’s something.
“effectively zero”, meaning “so small as to be utterly negligible”, is however.
Confusing the difference between utterly negligible non-zero probability and small non-zero probability that’s enough to pay attention to is an annoying but common fallacy. There should be a name for it already, does anyone know what it is?
I’m having a hard time thinking of evidence that would be stronger than the evidence against Hermione. Even if Harry saw her hex Malfoy with his own eyes, I wouldn’t put it past him to suspect he was memory charmed. It doesn’t seem like Harry is seriously considering the possibility that Hermione is actually guilty. Can you think of evidence that would cause him to raise the probability, not even to 50%, but to 5%?
And why does Harry believe in the innocence of Hermione? Take the outside view. It is the first crush of a child. Natural selection did not spit out such a thing as pure innocents.
There could be multiple witnesses, Harry could have seen it himself, there could be indications of premeditated anger at Malfoy (older than what the court legilimens found), or some reason why she would be extra angry at him.
Okay.
Hermione knocks on the door of the Headmaster’s office, while Harry and Dumbledore are having a chat. “I thought you’d like to know,” she says, “I’m going to kill Draco Malfoy.” She then turns around and leaves. Harry laughs nervously, but Dumbledore looks worried. “We probably ought to follow her.”
They arrive at the trophy room just in time to see Hermione stun Malfoy and cast the blood-cooling charm on him. She turns around and sees Harry, and smiles. “Well, now you’re safe, Harry.”
The subsequent investigation reveals that, as a protest against Binn’s teaching, she’d been submitting plans of ways to kill Malfoy as her homework for months now, and then stopped a week ago, with the last one involving the blood-cooling charm.
What’s Harry’s probability that Hermione was the hand behind the dagger? (Or, to put it another way, is there enough evidence out there that’s stronger evidence for “Hermione did it of her own free will” than “Hermione was the pawn in someone else’s game” that could put Harry up to even 5% probaiblity that Hermione did it herself?)
If I remember correctly, one of the reasons Harry has a crush on her is that he’s impressed by her moral good sense.
What crush? Can you link a passage that shows that EY means us to understand that Harry has a crush on anyone other than his Time Tuner and Quirrell?
What in the world are all these downvotes for?
Rabid defenders of the H.M.S. Harmony, I’d guess. Some of them thought Harry and Hermione were married in 81 in a creepy D/s ceremony.
EY has attracted them because there’s a ship tease or toy ship or whatever. And because maybe he’s a bit of a Harmonizer himself, as he had said he couldn’t get into the later books.
The downvotes are leaking away, though. So that’s something.
To be fair, there isn’t much difference between the amount of evidence needed for 5% confidence and 50% confidence.