Active thread

Only the replies to the one thread you selected
Ban Ard: Larry bird isn't even top 5
Abydos: the gap between probability and truth
Roggeveen: I like red more than blue
Dakara: There is no way to recreate the truth. So, juries are guessing based on creative storytelling.
Onderon: Lol General Elongated Man Girl
Vizima: Those who liked red are more risk averse
Orilla: successive probabilities make rational sense as a framework to analyze important events, but they're not *at all* intuitive
Yavin 4: Larry Bird is def top 5, but "greatest" is a little excessive
Naboo: How has our society become so probability obsessed?
Maribor: independence is a poorly explained concept to juries
Vizima: @white queen brain -- yeah, that concerns me
Procyon B: I wonder how often numeric percentages are used when instructing juries
Mars: Other than realizing I really need to refresh my math skills, that juries are just an effective means of trying to convince society that we are finding truth rather than just guessing
Onderon: I agree Zatanna, I feel like it's not as common because it isn't that clear
Tegamo: In the Woburn hypo (or similar), if we think that it's a problem that each element, added together, does not amount to 51% as a whole, then I think more weight should be given to the fault element. If the fault can be established, then I am not so concerned with the actual causation. Penalizing that company still serves the public policy goals of deterring negligent/potentially harmful conduct.
Mustafar: Juries don't actually make decisions in terms of parsing probabilities.
Andromeda: The jury process is really quite bizarre, as is the idea of using probability in the ways we discussed today.
Onderon: Definitely
Cantonica: We often have predictable biases in decision making, and our brains aren’t good at probability
Yavin 4: today's class really hammered in the problematic nature of inserting the notion of probability into jury determinations. really made me think
Kerack: Of course juries cannot be certain about their verdicts. We cannot be "certain" about anything. We are trying to do the best we can. What's our alternative? If our inability to know something with 100% certainty were to prevent us from acting based off of knowledge that hits any degree lower than that, then we wouldn't accomplish anything as humans.
Hosnian Prime: I think there is a way to properly instruct juries regarding independent events and probabilities.
Saturn: Larry Bird as the greatest ever was a hot take. But, really, it makes sense to go through the elements in a process and to think through the likelihood of each of the elements. However, it's an almost-unworkable solution if you have to be >50% sure of each element since that quickly can make it an almost unreachable hurdle. Moreover, it risks casting doubt onto the system and inviting greater scrutiny to the jury system.
Proteus: We might see much different results in trials if the jurors were asked for a special verdict and were prompted to consider something like the product rule in coming to their overall verdict.
Vartburg: Successive probability depends on the claim that the events are independent. There is a large amount of evidence that suggests seemingly independent events are actually dependent and that humans are not very good judges of independence.
Neptune: I wonder whether the reason why we accept a lower cumulative probability than preponderance is because we don’t really weigh the importance of these elements equally or because we feel that distinguishing and ensuring that each element is there is more important than cumulative preponderance
Earth: Intuition plays a central role in decision making.
Callisto: Compounding elements in a trial necessarily leads to fewer cases of absolute certainty. But some cases are complex. If it seems too difficult for a jury to accurately consider compounding elements, maybe different questions should be tried separately by different juries.
Cantonica: Havlicek retired before Bird joined the league
Deimos: I don't think that probability is the bare question that society wants the jury to determine. The jury is to make a social judgment -- one inflected by probability, effects of the alleged acts, strength of evidence, status of the parties. I think it's okay that a human system largely runs on human intuitions.