Statistical Tests and the Law

Originally posted by ivanhoe


C'mon Cribs. Take it as a man or grow up .....

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that you are in
agreement with the idea put forth in RC's second post?

Dr. Cribs

Originally posted by ivanhoe


... by the way, Cribs. It might enlighten you a wee bit if you would consider the fact that you and I and all the other RHP members are in fact Russ's guests.

Could you elaborate on how you think RHP is
relevant to this discussion? I don't see the
connection. We are having an abstract discussion
about the appropriate method for handling
criminal accusations.

Originally posted by ivanhoe


C'mon Cribs. Take it as a man or grow up .....

I'm not sure why you think harassing Cribs in this manner is OK, Ivanhoe. You really shouldn't go around telling people to "grow up", as though they're children you can order around. Please refer to the TOS agreement concerning harassment. I've alerted the moderators concerning your post, which I also find offensive, and hope that they'll remove it forthwith.

Originally posted by bbarr
I'm not sure why you think harassing Cribs in this manner is OK, Ivanhoe. Please refer to the TOS agreement concerning harassment. I've alerted the moderators concerning your post, which I also find offensive, and hope that they'll remove it forthwith.

Thank you, bbarr. I'm looking forward to cultivating
a mutually respectful and affirming new friendship with
you. What are your thoughts on the issue that RC
has put before us to discuss in a friendly manner?

Dr. Cribs

Originally posted by Cribs
Thank you, bbarr. I'm looking forward to cultivating
a mutually respectful and affirming new friendship with
you. What are your thoughts on the issue that RC
has put before us to discuss in a friendly manner?

Dr. Cribs

You're welcome, Sir. I also hope we can engage in a polite and mutually edifying dialogue, wherein everyone's feelings are protected from disturbance.


I think the choice of a null-hypothesis is essentially value-laden. One must, in choosing a null-hypothesis, determine whether it is worse that an innocent be wrongly convicted than a guilty one go free. I can think of several scenarios where a "guilty until proven innocent" approach would be justified. For instance, in case of virulent outbreak it may be much more important to quarantine all those who are possibly infected than to only quarantine those one has good reason to believe are infected.

Originally posted by bbarr
You're welcome, Sir. I also hope we can engage in a polite and mutually edifying dialogue, wherein everyone's feelings are protected from disturbance.


I think the choice of a null-hypothesis is essentially value-laden. One must, in choosing a null-hypothesis, determine whether it is worse that an innocent be wrongly convicted than a guilty one go free. ...[text shortened]... e possibly infected than to only quarantine those one has good reason to believe are infected.

Ah, that's a very polite observation, one that truly
reflects your worth and capabilities, both as a person
and a philosopher.

If you are interested in continuing, I beg, please
consider one aspect of the model that has not yet
been addressed. Namely, in a criminal trial, as in
a publicized scientific experiment, the methods,
evidence, and arguments are typically made available
for public review. Should this be a factor to politely
consider when formulating a respectful null hypothesis?

Dr. Cribs

Originally posted by ivanhoe


... by the way, Cribs. It might enlighten you a wee bit if you would consider the fact that you and I and all the other RHP members are in fact Russ's guests.

Ivanhoe, the discussion is about legal presumption and statistical inference. I would like your thoughts on how they relate, but this post is off-topic.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Your sarcasm shows that you two are a bunch of losers.

Ivanhoe, in addition to being sarcastic, they are discussing a serious subject, namely the relationship between the concept of a null hypothesis and the idea of ''innocent until proven guilty''. Please respect their right to discuss this without harassment, and if you have ideas on the subject, please join the debate.

Originally posted by royalchicken
Ivanhoe, in addition to being sarcastic, they are discussing a serious subject, namely the relationship between the concept of a null hypothesis and the idea of ''innocent until proven guilty''. Please respect their right to discuss this without harassment, and if you have ideas on the subject, please join the debate.

Alweer 'n vos die de passie preekt.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Alweer 'n vos die de passie preekt.

While I respect the fact that you go out of your way to (perfectly) speak a language other than your mother tongue to post on RHP, and that I am not capable of doing this, can you please translate?

Originally posted by royalchicken
While I respect the fact that you go out of your way to (perfectly) speak a language other than your mother tongue to post on RHP, and that I am not capable of doing this, can you please translate?

He's claiming you're being disingenuous.

Originally posted by bbarr
He's claiming you're being disingenuous.

Does anyone know what language that is?

-TT

EDIT: I think it might be Dutch, but I am not sure...

Originally posted by bbarr
You're welcome, Sir. I also hope we can engage in a polite and mutually edifying dialogue, wherein everyone's feelings are protected from disturbance.


I think the choice of a null-hypothesis is essentially value-laden. One must, in choosing a null-hypothesis, determine whether it is worse that an innocent be wrongly convicted than a guilty one go free. ...[text shortened]... e possibly infected than to only quarantine those one has good reason to believe are infected.

So one can logically say that you believe that the confinement of suspected terrorists in Gitmo under the Patriot Act is justified. After all terrorism is a virus.