Subject:
|
Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 2 Oct 2002 20:57:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
881 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> > Having a debate where one side says, "This, this, this, this and this proves
> > my point" (of course, all 'this''s are backed up by link and/or citations)
> > and someone comes along and says, 'well, this one point of yours is
> > erronous, therefore the entire arguement is erronous' is, imho, wrong. Is
> > like the OJ Trial--we have the blood, we have the DNA, we have the motive,
> > we have the whole bunch of everything, all pointing to OJ, and yet--the
> > gloves don't fit!!--well, that *must* mean the rest of the case is false, so
> > that's that!
>
> I'm not sure I agree here. A bit of logic might help.
>
> If I assert: (-> == implies )
>
> A -> B and B -> C and C -> D are all true , and thus A -> D is true
>
> and provide facts or evidence
>
> FAB in support of A -> B
> FBC in support of B -> C
> FCD in support of C -> D
>
>
> then, if you can show ANY ONE of FAB, FBC or FCD to be false, you cast a
> great deal of doubt on A -> D, as a link is broken in the inference chain.
>
> If on the other hand, I only assert E -> F
>
> and provide facts or evidence
>
> FEF1 in support of E -> F
> FEF2 in support of E -> F
> FEF3 in support of E -> F
>
> (each of which is sufficient on its own)
>
> knocking away any one of FEF1, FEF2, or FEF3 does not disprove E -> F in and
> of itself.
>
> The prosecution argument was that there was a chain of evidence supporting a
> chain of inferences. It was not (seriously) disputed by the defense that the
> DNA evidence strongly indicated that the blood on the gloves was that of who
> the prosecution said it was... The prosecution had argued that OJ had to
> have worn the gloves when committing the murder, that it was vital that the
> gloves were worn by him and not someone else or it wasn't OJ that did it.
>
> Thus, the gloves being worn by OJ was one inference in a chain, not one fact
> of many supporting a single inference. Breaking that one inference broke the
> whole chain. That is what Johnnie Cochrane did by showing that the gloves
> did not fit. Or at least that's what I interpreted him to do.
>
> Apologies to critical thinkers, who already know this... but it is extremely
> valid to break one point in a chain and then cast aspersions on the whole
> chain. If you don't know this, perhaps you watch too much tv or get too much
> reasoning spoon fed to you by it, at any rate. TV is notoriously poor at
> this sort of exposition.
>
> In my view the prosecution botched handling the case. I believe based on gut
> feel (but not the evidence as presented, note the distinction) that OJ did
> it. But they didn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore the
> jury returned the correct verdict.
Very nicely put, Larry...
However, my point was outlined with the second reasoning you made--that
given a list of claims, (FEF1 (blood), FEF2 (DNA), FEF3 (motive), FEF4
(whatever)... FEFn) and one of those claims was refuted, it does not mean
that the hypothesis E -> F (OJ did it) is untrue.
Now if *all* claims are refuted, then the hypothesis needs to be
re-examined. A list of claims is not a logical sequence of events, a list
is just that--a list--and all points have to be refuted before the
hypothesis is shown to be erronous.
Now I will be the first to admit that I basically tuned the entire trial out
after the first week and I am on the same page as you as to why I think OJ
did it. I was using the case as an example.
We had a discussion a long time ago about the weakest link in a chain, but
as someone mentioned then, if the chain link is more of a web, you must snip
lots of links before the web falls apart.
Dave K.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
| (...) David please do not mark up my words as you did in the next paragraph. It is confusing to the readership and extremely poor form. (...) Everything in parenthesis was added by David, and is incorrectly associated with the same inference. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
| (...) I'm not sure I agree here. A bit of logic might help. If I assert: (-> == implies ) A -> B and B -> C and C -> D are all true , and thus A -> D is true and provide facts or evidence FAB in support of A -> B FBC in support of B -> C FCD in (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
