Mathematical logic and real life are two different things and there lies the potential for skewed results. The Prosecutor's fallacy is an interesting concept and it may bear on how criminal justice "facts" are arrived at. The beat cop works on probabilities and will probably settle for 75% accuracy. The CSI officer has more science in his work and may push the accuracy somewhat higher. The prosecutor strives to make a case "beyond a reasonable doubt." Very high standard indeed. But in these kinds of cases, there still must be wiggle room. I've talked to judges who admit, over neat whisky, that they are prepared to settle for 95% accuracy in day to day cases. So the system in most cases is sloppier than the ideal of a mathematical theorem.
This is particularly true in that nether world called "police intelligence" where the sliding scale of accuracy has to be kept rigidly in mind, just as it does in foreign intelligence and counterintelligence settings. There are firmly established "facts" and then there are wild-assed guesses and sometimes the spy shops and their bosses, the politicians" have to take action on the basis of scant real information. Like the Wuhan Lab Leak theory and the estimated intentions of foreign leaders, evidence has to be accumulated and then judged comparatively.
Then there is the emotional component of real life, where prejudice and tribalism take over.
So life is complicated. Evidence and witness testimony have to be taken into the equation and inevitably mistakes will be made. I heard Mega's Jeff Zuckerberg tell Joe Rogan the other day that the quandary involved in putting free-speech controls on social media is that decisions must be made on two sliding scales: How much bad speech will be allowed to slip through versus how many good-faith commenters or posters are unjustly proscribed or banned. Free speech controls imposed by government are unconstitutional; controls imposed by private social media companies are not unconstitutional although they may be harsh or lenient, depending on the standards applied.
I’m fascinated by this kind of flawed logic, and it’s one of the reasons I feel that statistics should be required in high school. I believe that cluelessness about statistics drives a lot of self-righteous orthodoxy.
I completely agree with you, Karl! I'd like to see moral philosophy included in high school, too, as they do in France. A couple of years of that and you'd see much less jumping to conclusions on social media and much better informed journalism.
My current way of looking at it: humans largely default to judgment based on whims, prejudice, etc. This is normal. But our education system ought to include things that can statistically offset that reality by making critical thinking at least possible, if not likely.
This reminded me of the case of Thomas Quick in Sweden, convicted as a serial killer, who confessed several times, testified against himself, and more...much later they figured out he was not guilty of any of them! It's a fascinating story.
I don’t know about Thomas Quick, but I definitely should. I’m trying to learn all about my wife’s culture anyway (she’s Swedish, not a murderer). Thank you for alerting me, I’ll check it out!
Mathematical logic and real life are two different things and there lies the potential for skewed results. The Prosecutor's fallacy is an interesting concept and it may bear on how criminal justice "facts" are arrived at. The beat cop works on probabilities and will probably settle for 75% accuracy. The CSI officer has more science in his work and may push the accuracy somewhat higher. The prosecutor strives to make a case "beyond a reasonable doubt." Very high standard indeed. But in these kinds of cases, there still must be wiggle room. I've talked to judges who admit, over neat whisky, that they are prepared to settle for 95% accuracy in day to day cases. So the system in most cases is sloppier than the ideal of a mathematical theorem.
This is particularly true in that nether world called "police intelligence" where the sliding scale of accuracy has to be kept rigidly in mind, just as it does in foreign intelligence and counterintelligence settings. There are firmly established "facts" and then there are wild-assed guesses and sometimes the spy shops and their bosses, the politicians" have to take action on the basis of scant real information. Like the Wuhan Lab Leak theory and the estimated intentions of foreign leaders, evidence has to be accumulated and then judged comparatively.
Then there is the emotional component of real life, where prejudice and tribalism take over.
So life is complicated. Evidence and witness testimony have to be taken into the equation and inevitably mistakes will be made. I heard Mega's Jeff Zuckerberg tell Joe Rogan the other day that the quandary involved in putting free-speech controls on social media is that decisions must be made on two sliding scales: How much bad speech will be allowed to slip through versus how many good-faith commenters or posters are unjustly proscribed or banned. Free speech controls imposed by government are unconstitutional; controls imposed by private social media companies are not unconstitutional although they may be harsh or lenient, depending on the standards applied.
Yeah, life is complicated.
I’m fascinated by this kind of flawed logic, and it’s one of the reasons I feel that statistics should be required in high school. I believe that cluelessness about statistics drives a lot of self-righteous orthodoxy.
I completely agree with you, Karl! I'd like to see moral philosophy included in high school, too, as they do in France. A couple of years of that and you'd see much less jumping to conclusions on social media and much better informed journalism.
My current way of looking at it: humans largely default to judgment based on whims, prejudice, etc. This is normal. But our education system ought to include things that can statistically offset that reality by making critical thinking at least possible, if not likely.
Footnote 1 is a shock!
Goldacre does great work.
This reminded me of the case of Thomas Quick in Sweden, convicted as a serial killer, who confessed several times, testified against himself, and more...much later they figured out he was not guilty of any of them! It's a fascinating story.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/20/thomas-quick-bergwall-sweden-murder
I read one of the books about it and want to write about it -- eventually
I don’t know about Thomas Quick, but I definitely should. I’m trying to learn all about my wife’s culture anyway (she’s Swedish, not a murderer). Thank you for alerting me, I’ll check it out!
I’ll get the details on the book too— I also think it would make an excellent film.
I read one of them which I really enjoyed and wanted / want to read the other.