pataz1 — LessWrong

LESSWRONG
LW

pataz1 — LessWrong

Replying toThe Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

Frankly, I'm more inclined to agree with brandon's take on it, that its "a social rather than individual process," an aspect the writer of the Against article didn't consider. This is linked at the bottom of the "Against" article.

http://branemrys.blogspot.com/2008/06/on-devils-advocacy.html

Brandon puts forth, "Yudkowsky is right that people who play games by thinking up arguments, however absurd, for a position, are simply being irrational; but this is to no point whatsoever: everyone knows that the devil's advocate is supposed to come up not with any old argument but with good or at least reasonably plausible arguments, arguments with at least some genuine strengths. People play devil's advocate for a reason, not simply in order to start making things up without any rational restraint. There are less elaborate and roundabout ways to play-pretend."

I would point out that online discussion forum are entirely social enterprises, so Brandon's approach at Devil's Advocacy would seem to apply.

Pat

Replying toThe Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

pataz116y

The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

Thanks for the link. While I can't claim to completely understand it on first (and second) read, a few thoughts do come to mind.

I followed a link on that page to the "What evidence filtered evidence" file, and a comment there struck me as being more descriptive of my approach: "If there are two clever arguers in the box dilemma, it is not quite as good as one curious inquirer, but it is almost as good. "

Within most of the forums, they are heavily weighed one way or the other; even neutral forums have the problem that the individuals there are weighed one way or the other. They have arrived at... (read 643 more words →)

Replying toThe Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

pataz116y

The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

I'm sorry, I didn't realize belittling was in the toolbox of the Rationalist. I'm so glad I found this website so I can update my methods!

Luminol does react with other substances like bleach, but it does so with a different intensity curve; you are talking about chemistry here. According to what I've read, experienced technicians can distinguish the quicker/brighter reaction with bleach from the the slower/longer reaction with blood. I don't know if the technician was asked their professional opinion during the trial as to what they concluded from the reaction.

An understanding of how the evidence was obtained is necessary to judge what the appropriate "weight" is to apply to the physical... (read more)

-6

Replying toThe Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

pataz116y

The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

In response to your first point, reportedly 19 judges found time and again in the year of hearings leading up to the trial there was sufficient cause that Knox and Sollecito were involved. While I myself have argued elsewhere about how complex the explanation is that is required from the prosecution's theory of the three of them in the room in some sex orgy gone wrong, neither do I think that a full examination of all of the physical evidence of the crime scene supports a theory of Guede acting alone.

Your assessment that the Knox/Sollecito theory is a physically complex one is based on the evidence in the room and our... (read more)

-4

Replying toThe Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

pataz116y

The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

Human rationality has failed repeatedly in the past when encountering evidence from the physical world. We rationalized the earth being the center of the universe, until "ci sono tres!" We rationalized newtonian physics until general relativity. We rationalized deterministic physics until quantum. Its only by expanding our understanding the other evidence that we've corrected wrong or incomplete theories and hypotheses.

As I've argued in another comment that apparently one (or more) readers rationalized wasn't worthy of the discussion, there is other, physical, evidence outside your hypothesis of Knox's innocence that isn't accounted for in your approach. Your hypothesis was flawed from the onset, as it didn't incorporate what is typically considered... (read more)

-7

Replying toThe Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

pataz116y

The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

I find a number of logical errors in what you've presented.

The first is a difference in the the interpretation of the term 'guilty'. For the mass of the internet, guilty is understood to mean definitively "So-and-so did the action." However, a verdict of guilty is quite a different thing; being related to a human enterprise, a verdict of guilty is necessarily bounded by time, technology, and common agreement, to list a few. For example, we frequently argue the technology part- the LCN DNA test on the knife. The ability to prove "guilty" as "did the action" is limited to our advancement and acceptance of LCN DNA testing. Regarding common agreement, I... (read 864 more words →)

-4

Replying toThe Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

pataz116y

The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

Here's the counter-argument; Knox was voluntarily in the station when Sollecito was being questioned. They hadn't risen to the official level of 'suspect' yet. They started questioning Knox when Sollecito said Knox wasn't as his place for some of the evening. She started providing a statement against the bar owner; they still had her as a 'witness' instead of a 'suspect.' Even the written statement that was inadmissible against Knox was still initially a statement against the bar owner.

All very rational. :)

-4

Replying toThe Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

pataz116y

The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

"If Luminol is used it can destroy important properties of the blood. While it can detect even small amounts of blood, the disadvantage is often that the small amount identified is diluted further by the Luminol solution. For these reasons, Luminol is encouraged to be used as a last resort in crime scene investigations to protect the physical evidence."

Read more at Suite101: Luminol - Chemiluminescent Blood Detector: Forensic Investigators' Essential Tool for Crime Scene Investigation | Suite101.com http://crime-scene-processing.suite101.com/article.cfm/chemiluminescent_luminol#ixzz0Ztn6XLRc

-2

Replying toThe Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

pataz116y

The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

the LCN dna test was only done on the knife; the bra clasp was a regular DNA test, i believe.

-1

Replying toThe Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

pataz116y

The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

The problem for the trial was the Defense's argument against the DNA on the knife was undermined by Sollecito admitting there may be the victim's blood/dna on the knife because of a dinner at his house that never happened. Although it tested negative for blood, at that point, the critique against the LCN DNA on the knife is almost superfluous. Sollecito made up a reason to excuse evidence that the defense was challenging the proof of.

-1