[David Sklansky]

"I'm willing to accept whatever the existing error rate is with an eye towards continuing to improve upon the system. As we do in other things:

What error rate would you accept for wrongly convicting a child molester?

What error rate would you accept for air travel fatalities?

Why should we need a lower tolerance for error when dealing with the death penalty?

So my answer is: Whatever the existing rate happens to be. "

I hope a lot of forumites read this post. Because it is a perfect example of words that seem intelligent enough on the surface but are in fact just plain dumb. Words like these are common in the hands of people trained in English but not logic.

"I'm willing to accept whatever the existing error rate is with an eye towards continuing to improve upon the system. As we do in other things:"

The question obviously assumes that the present rate, or no death penalty, are the only two choices. And even if they weren't, the answer is a lie. Suppose the error rate is 10% and improves by .2% per decade?

"What error rate would you accept for wrongly convicting a child molester?

What error rate would you accept for air travel fatalities?

Why should we need a lower tolerance for error when dealing with the death penalty?"

It is rare that you find so a clear example of fuzzy thinking. Stop if it isn't immediately apparent and figure it out yourself.

Anyway the answer of course, is that in the case of the death penalty, the downside to the remedy of turning the error rate into zero is that the convicted get life in prison. The downside to the remedy of assuring a zero error rate fore child molestors is that all child molestors go free. To insure no airline fatalities we must give up airplanes and cripple our economy.

One of the hallmarks of good thinking is the ability to see when an anology is good or bad. I think that ability can be learned. So do it.