Re: My Take
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I gave a precise definition of the pseudo probability as you call it. The juror is asked to imagine that there are 100 trials with the exact same evidence. How many of those defendents IN HIS OWN PERSONAL OPINION will be innocent. As it is, the juror is expected to give the answer "not many" before he convicts. So all I am saying is that it would be nice for jurors to be told what number should be considered not many.
[/ QUOTE ]
I cannot imagine how there could possibly be 100 different trials with the exact same evidence. That scenario is a figment of your imagination. When I imagine 100 copies of the 1 situation that is in front of me, all I can see are either 100 guilty defendents or 100 innocent ones. I just don't know which. That is a philosophical difference in how we look at it. I am not bound by your philosophical view nor by the imaginary figment you have conjured.
PairTheBoard
[/ QUOTE ]
You are simply wrong. The thought experiment while contrived is not unimaginable. And it has nothing to do with philosophy. To show this imagine that there is a horse race picking contest based totally on the information in the daily racing form. I'll say the races were already run to avoid a nitpick about past events vs future events.
There are one hundred DIFFERENT races with totally different horses. Eight horses in each race. But amazingly the past performances for horses one throug eight are EXACTLY the same as far as what is in the racing form. In other words all number ones look alike. All number twos look alike. Etc etc. But they are NOT IDENTICAL Horses. And there are differences among them and among the conditions of the races. Some relevant. Such as height and weight. Or what the track bias was that day. But that information isn't available to you. Just like all evidence is not available at the trial.
Anyway you are now asked to pick the winner of each race. Say number three looks much the best. So you pick him. But that means you would pick number three in ALL races. Now your contention if translated to this example would be that number three will either win all races or lose all races. But this would obviously not be the case even if they were running on a straightaway with no racing luck involved.
If you change all the races to two horses races between Innocent and Guilty, I would hope that you would now understand that my thought experiment does not presuppose some debatable "philosophy".
|