since you appear to still be watching this thread, it seems worth a reply even 3 months later.
Clearly “entirely wrong” is too strong and unnecessary verbiage in any case. I admit it did not even occur to me that you were using “=” to mean only “essentially equal in absolute terms”.
Note, my comment was referring only to your response to Psychohistorian, not your general argument about why P(Knox) is very small given the information presented at trial, with which I agree wholeheartedly.
I apologize for my confusion. Here and in a few other comments, you seemed to be asserting not merely that the strong evidence against G put so much probability mass into P(G) that the differences between P(Knox) and P(random peer) became much too small to care about in absolute terms, but that it somehow changed the relative dynamic between P(K) and P(rp). The fact that neither probability was worth worrying about in legal terms doesn’t change the ‘>’ vs. ‘=’ question, and that’s the only thing I was responding to there. I also suspect the distinction matters in practice in rare cases, so I saw it as important enough to be worth picking the nit.
since you appear to still be watching this thread, it seems worth a reply even 3 months later.
Clearly “entirely wrong” is too strong and unnecessary verbiage in any case. I admit it did not even occur to me that you were using “=” to mean only “essentially equal in absolute terms”.
Note, my comment was referring only to your response to Psychohistorian, not your general argument about why P(Knox) is very small given the information presented at trial, with which I agree wholeheartedly.
I apologize for my confusion. Here and in a few other comments, you seemed to be asserting not merely that the strong evidence against G put so much probability mass into P(G) that the differences between P(Knox) and P(random peer) became much too small to care about in absolute terms, but that it somehow changed the relative dynamic between P(K) and P(rp). The fact that neither probability was worth worrying about in legal terms doesn’t change the ‘>’ vs. ‘=’ question, and that’s the only thing I was responding to there. I also suspect the distinction matters in practice in rare cases, so I saw it as important enough to be worth picking the nit.