In the same way, I think it’s worth mentioning the Janet Chandler case from the 70s. But again, if you object to this approach, just ignore paragraphs 2 through 7 of my blog post.
I agree that it’s worth mentioning Janet Chandler. It would be better to treat it seriously as evidence, rather than merely as a narrative framing device. To treat it seriously as evidence, you should use it to help establish a prior probability for Knox’s guilt (like Desrtopa did).
It would be better to treat it seriously as evidence, rather than merely as a narrative framing device. To treat it seriously as evidence, you should use it to help establish a prior probability for Knox’s guilt
It seems to me that “narrative framing device” is basically a poor man’s method of estimating a prior probability. Here’s what I said in my blog post:
The point is that there are levels of extraordinary. Claiming that Knox participated in her roommate’s murder is not like claiming that the president is actually an extra-terrestrial from Mars.
Of course in terms of assessing probabilities, it might be better if there were a lot of precedents, for example in a situation where a husband is suspected of killing his wife. But here there’s not a lot to go on.
I agree that it’s worth mentioning Janet Chandler. It would be better to treat it seriously as evidence, rather than merely as a narrative framing device. To treat it seriously as evidence, you should use it to help establish a prior probability for Knox’s guilt (like Desrtopa did).
It seems to me that “narrative framing device” is basically a poor man’s method of estimating a prior probability. Here’s what I said in my blog post:
Of course in terms of assessing probabilities, it might be better if there were a lot of precedents, for example in a situation where a husband is suspected of killing his wife. But here there’s not a lot to go on.