In 28 pages, I’d’ve expected you to cover Bayesian math, quantum theory and tea-leaf analysis.
We could’ve done that and stayed a great deal more on topic in covering them, I agree.
Was Bayes Thereom specifically discussed? I hadn’t noticed it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13249625/site/newsweek/
“Prosecutor silent.” Gee, we could have used a little more of that earlier on.
By the way – I think it is probably time to conclude that several people here owe the OP an apology. For a long time I refrained from joining in his harsh characterization in the thread title.
If the accounts we’re now hearing are true (and yes, they “come from the defense counsel” – who are subject to serious sanctions if they are stupid enough as to knowingly be making inaccurate statements or characterizations in court filings), then:
She has almost certainly (by definition) “lied,” if only because her stories are mutually incompatible.
It appears she has performed sex acts for money (she worked for an “escort” agency and was being dropped off at hotels and had sex with multiple men in the days before the “attack” and put on a sex show for a couple, using a vibrator, for money). Thus, the odds would appear very high indeed that she is “A woman who prostitutes herself for hire; a prostitute, harlot,” as the OED puts it in its definition of “whore.”
Baba Booey, I’m sure their apologies to you are coming right up.
That may be, but “whore” is not the most polite word for a prostitute. Granted it’s not the most honorable profession, but still. Can we call Nifong a “lying shyster”? Can we call Investigator Himan a “lying pig”?
I certainly would and could after all the revelations. I’ve been calling for Nifong to be sanctioned for about 20 pages. Has he lied? Close call, but if agents under his direction have, then legally that’s pretty much on his head, so I’m okay with the label. He is not, clearly, a very principled or smart prosecutor.
My only point in noting her, um, apparent profession is that several posters in this thread indignantly protested the OP’s (admittedly harsh) title (I think one poster even suggested the thread should have been shut on that account alone), saying that a stripper was not the same thing as a prostitute. In this case, seemingly, it kinda appears to be the same thing.
Not that I expect them to apologize to the OP, IRL.
Nu uh. He’s quite the legal stud. Just ask him.
From the link–
Not under that name, but if you look several pages back you’ll find something about red and maroon cars, presented without too many long words (not that “Bayes” is a particularly long word, of course), a very similar mathematical problem to yours. If you weren’t a guest I’d offer search parameters, but guests can’t search so it’s not just me being awkward.
Well anyway, you may be interested to know that the concept Huerta was pushing from the beginning has been formalized mathematically.
Anyone who doubts his point should learn about Bayes Thereom and see if it changes their mind.
Oh indeed. But Huerta88 has, as he himself has repeatedly said, a lot more to bring to the table than statistics - such as the horrible inadequacy of the entire prosecution case, for a start.
Not respect to human behavior, it hasn’t. Bayesian reasoning applies to observations subject to mathematically-derivable probabilities. Like the false positive rate of a medical screening test (which is the same concept as Malacandra’s hypothetical). Or the prevalence of a certain DNA sequence in a population of people.
It does not, and I repeat, it does not have anything to do with predicting whether a white man would rape a black woman given a particular set of conditions. And it has nothing to do with whether a black woman would lie about such an event.
Bayesian reasoning has nothing to do with nonrandom, nonpredictable human behavior. I’ll say it again: Bayesian reasoning has nothing to do with nonrandom, nonpredictable human behavior. And this time with feeling: Bayesian reasoning has nothing to do with nonrandom, nonpredictable human behavior.
Why? Because human behavior is not subject to statistical odds. If you don’t believe me, go compute the odds of me not caring and see what you get.
And guiseppe, take notice that crime stats have also been provided by posters in this thread which indicate that w-o-b is reported at the shockingly infintessimal* frequency of once a week in Durham, NC. In light of this factoid, Bayesian reasoning looks especially dumb, desperate, and irrelevant in this discussion. But by all means, don’t let a knowledge get in the way of your opinions.
*sarcasm
You see what I mean.
As I noted earlier, it was a mistake to engage with you with the face. I believe she is either insane or trolling.
If anyone else would like to debate whether or not human behavior is subject to statistical analysis and prediction, I would be happy to discuss it with them.
you with the face correctly draws attention to the stat that purports to show that w-o-b rape is not so darned rare as all that, which if true doesn’t invalidate the Bayesian stuff… rather it would tend to make the complaint more credible given the incidence of the crime versus the incidence of untruthfulness.
As to the statistical predictability of human beings, that’s pretty much what pays my salary. Actuaries sit down and work out the likelihood of the average punter dying of natural causes, crashing cars, and so on, and figure out what premium should be charged in order for the company to make a profit but be competitive in the market-place. Oddly, they help us make a living over time.
Agree.
Agree. Ditto for credit reporting agencies.
You use stats to predict things about groups of human beings. Not individuals. If actuaries could draw any predictions down to the individual level, they wouldn’t be called actuaries. They’d be called fortune tellers.
But of course this has been covered already, so many bloody times, that’s its wretchedly pathetic that you post such nonsense with a straight face.
And yeah, guiseppe, I’m a crazy troll. Your amazing refutation of my arguments clearly shows that, too. :rolleyes:
Do you really think that the actions of an individual human being can be predicted using population-based statistical information? This is not a crazy trollish question. I am really curious how this could sound even remotely plausible.
Whatever. As I said, I’m not going to engage you. If anyone else wants to argue that human behaviour is not subject to statistical analysis and prediction, whether on an individual or group basis, I’m happy to discuss it with them.
Start a thread in GD, then. I’m interested in seeing what kind of response you get. Since you can’t argue with me without acting like a pussy, take your topic to a forum more suitable for critical thinking and see how that works for you.
And if you don’t mind please make sure you reference this thread in the OP, to provide the readership with the specific context behind your query.
Whatever. As I said, I’m not going to engage you. If anyone else wants to argue that human behaviour is not subject to statistical analysis and prediction, whether on an individual or group basis, I’m happy to discuss it with them.
I repudiated your dumbass friend wring when she mischaracterized the statewide North Carolina data as coming from a single city. She acknowledged pissily that, oops, she got it wrong, but math is hard, Barbie, and there is absolutely no statistic in evidence about “one w-o-b rape a week in Durham.”
So your repeating her misrepresenation about “a rape a week in Duraham, S.C.” (yeah, she’s that smart) can only be disingenuous, at this point.