Subject:
|
Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 2 Oct 2002 21:24:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
926 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> Very nicely put, Larry...
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.
> 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.
Everything in parenthesis was added by David, and is incorrectly associated
with the same inference.
> 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,
It may or may not be. It depends on exactly what is being claimed. You need
to perform analysis on the claims and assertions to determine that. But
sequence and inference are different things. Again, perhaps a failure to
understand logic.
> a list
> is just that--a list--and all points have to be refuted before the
> hypothesis is shown to be erronous.
No. You're missing the point. If it's a chain, cutting one link is all that
is needed. One cannot determine whether a list is a chain or not without
analysis.
In this case...
Prosecution showed motive and opportunity but did not show method. You
cannot convict without all three. All three are required to be proven beyond
a reasonable doubt for me to be satisfied. In that case, these three form a
chain. Knock one away and you have broken the overall chain. Cochrane
(primarily, he was a good attorney and attacked everything even where his
counter was weak) attacked method because it was the weakest link in the
overall chain,
They failed to show "method" because their claimed "method" was itself a
chain, not a web, and Cochrane broke a link. Breaking that link breaks
method. Breaking method breaks beyond a reasonable doubt.
If they had presented 5 valid and plausible methods, then Cochrane would
have had to break all 5 as the five then would form a web for methods. They
did not.
> 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.
So you used as an example something that you "tuned out". That may not be
the best use of everyone else's time. I paid attention...
Your example is flawed as a way to make your point. You were insufficiently
precise in your original statement and I called you on it. You might want to
consider using things you paid attention to when selecting examples in
future to make sure you don't waste the time of the readers.
> 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.
Now that you've restated, yes, I agree, when one is dealing with a web, one
has to cut every strand (at some point or another (1) ) for the argument to
fail. But the prosecution's argument in the OJ case wasn't a web. It should
have been though. They would have convicted had they done their job, my gut
tells me.
1 - the calculation of all possible cutpath for a cyclic undirected graph
that uniquely and minimally partition it into two disjoint graphs can be
transformed into the traveling salesman problem (or hamiltonian path
problem) IIRC, and therefore is NP-complete (NP-hard?). Again IIRC. Just
thought I'd toss that out there. :-)
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
| (...) Everything in the *paragraph* was written by me and was *exactly* what I wanted to say with my first post about refuting an arguement by refuting one point--that by disputing one point of the list of evidence does not make *all* points null (...) (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"
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
