All of CornellEngr2008's Comments + Replies

It is not a problem to have unreliable evidence come in if juries in fact recognize its unreliability.

I'm skeptical. After all, the anchoring effect isn't weakened by being reminded that it exists. It seems that anything the jury sees will influence their decision, and they will likely be unable to discount its influence appropriately to account for its unreliability (especially if its emotionally charged).

I've always been uneasy when the judge on some court TV drama sustains an objection or asks that something be stricken from the record, as if that me... (read more)

I was just making a simple factual observation. Why did some people think it was an argument in favor of regulation?

I've noticed that Argument by Innuendo is unfortunately common, at least in in-person discussions. Basically, the arguer makes statements that seem to point to some conclusion or another, but stops a few steps short of actually drawing a conclusion, leaving the listener to draw the conclusion themselves. When I've caught myself doing this and ask myself why, there are a few reasons that come up, including:

  • I'm testing my audience's intel
... (read more)
Possibly related: When Truth Isn't Enough.
I think it's a good thing to do this. It is analogous to science. If you're a good reasoner and you encounter evidence that conflicts with one of your beliefs, you update that belief. Likewise, if you want to update someone else's belief, you can present evidence that conflicts with it in hopes they will be a good reasoner and update their belief. This would not be so effective if you just told them your conclusion flat out, because that would look like just another belief you are trying to force upon them.

I think the sentiment you're trying to express is captured in simply upvoting the post you're in agreement with. If you have nothing to add, it's probably best not to make a comment.

Mathematics is largely already excepted from the above discussion - this post is talking about empirical clusters only ("When you draw a boundary around a group of extensional points empirically clustered in thingspace"), and mathematics largely operates in a priori truths derived from axioms. For example, no one needs to do a study of triangles to see whether their angle all do, indeed, add up to 180 degrees - when that's not part of the definition of triangles, it follows from the other definitions and axioms.