IGX

[Url]http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2016 ... arget.html[\url]

bennyonesix wrote:For me, the symbols did it.

In NormalWorld, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

No they don't. They require the same amount of evidence. Who told you this?

.

bennyonesix wrote:No they don't. They require the same amount of evidence. Who told you this?

Reverend Bayes, the father of Bayesian Statistics. Also, Laplace and Hume.

"The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness."

"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence"

From Mouthbreather-in-chief's main news source...

“When I think about all the children Hillary Clinton has personally murdered and chopped up and raped, I have zero fear standing up against her,” Jones said in a YouTube video posted on Nov. 4. “Yeah, you heard me right. Hillary Clinton has personally murdered children. I just can’t hold back the truth anymore.”

Just can't hold back the truth on the Comet Ping Pong tunnel network full of children. Argument supported by our next National Security Advisor's chief of staff (and son).

WTF-idy F?

nafod wrote:From Mouthbreather-in-chief's main news source...

“When I think about all the children Hillary Clinton has personally murdered and chopped up and raped, I have zero fear standing up against her,” Jones said in a YouTube video posted on Nov. 4. “Yeah, you heard me right. Hillary Clinton has personally murdered children. I just can’t hold back the truth anymore.”

Just can't hold back the truth on the Comet Ping Pong tunnel network full of children. Argument supported by our next National Security Advisor's chief of staff (and son).

WTF-idy F?

That's why I prefer Art Bell.

nafod wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:No they don't. They require the same amount of evidence. Who told you this?

Reverend Bayes, the father of Bayesian Statistics. Also, Laplace and Hume.

"The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness."

"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence"

Hmmmm. Interesting. I have a pretty good background in both statistics and law but it's been a while... Could you please give me a quick course in Bayesian Analysis? Especially Karl Poppers critique of Justificationism. And then I suppose we need to look at Jury Instructions? Last I checked, it would get you overturned. But you seem to use Bayes as a heuristic in daily life so you probably know. Are Bayesian instructions required in Jury Instructions? If not, why not? Has there ever been a successful appeal based on the failure to instruct on the issue? I know there are some issues with whether evidence of the incidence of the crime would be required and also if the jury would be required to believe both that the Defendant is guilty AND that the evidence presented is congruent with no other outcome. Do you think this wise? I am not sure. Also, please discuss Bayesian Analysis and the crime of Conspiracy. Specifically, the fact that conspirators actively work to remove evidence and to provide evidence that is false. How do you think we should work this into our analysis?

I am particularly interested in how you decided this was an "extraordinary claim". Was this via Bayesian Analysis? I am not sure Bayes intended seriousness to equal extraordinary.

I've provided evidence as to the rate of incidence of these crimes in politics: child pedo rings have occurred and recently at that. I have also provided evidence of the active interference of politicians in the investigations. Would this effect your decision as to "extraordinariness"?

I am also interested in how you understand the weighting of evidence under Bayes. Let us assume you are correct and this is an extraordinary claim, how much extra evidence do you require? Or do you require a higher degree of certainty? Are these the same same or different? This is tricky and I think I made a mistake here. Do you see it?

I dunno, it seems to me that in deciding things, one collects the evidence, decides which pieces are true and relevant, and then constructs a most likely narrative on the basis of that. Of course, if we are going to punish someone, we might want more than "most likely", but in deciding what actually happened I think we can just go with most likely.

nafod wrote:From Mouthbreather-in-chief's main news source...

“When I think about all the children Hillary Clinton has personally murdered and chopped up and raped, I have zero fear standing up against her,” Jones said in a YouTube video posted on Nov. 4. “Yeah, you heard me right. Hillary Clinton has personally murdered children. I just can’t hold back the truth anymore.”

Just can't hold back the truth on the Comet Ping Pong tunnel network full of children. Argument supported by our next National Security Advisor's chief of staff (and son).

WTF-idy F?

Do you think it wise to dismiss claims based on the existence of false pieces of evidence?

I am quite excited at the recent developments in this case. The defenders have admitted Alefantis is a disgusting sex freak who posts photos of children and includes children in perverse activities at his family pizza joint. They just claim that this doesn't mean he's a pedo you damn bigots. Lol.

Sunlight is the great disinfectant.

I look forward to a thorough investigation of the claims so far made and evidence presented.

bennyonesix wrote:I am particularly interested in how you decided this was an "extraordinary claim". Was this via Bayesian Analysis?

Yes. My Bayesian prior is based on the fact that, prior to any evidence, you'd expect the former first lady and a former whitehouse chief of staff (or any two acquaintances on the planet) to have a probability of running a child sex ring of pretty much no fucking way, based on the ratio of acquaintances in the US to acquaintances that are running sex rings. It does happen, but has to be in the .0000001% probability range. I mean, how many of your friends are running child sex rings?

P(sexring) = .000000000000001

So a good Bayesian looks at the P(sexring|evidence), i.e., the probability conditioned on the evidence. This is equal to...

P(S|E) = P(E|S) P(S)/P(E)

So probability of sex ring given evidence = probability you'd see that evidence given there is a sex ring (I'll assume 100%) x P(sex ring) (infinitesimal) divided by probability of seeing the evidence (approximately 1, since we are talking about fever swamp-dwelling conspiracy theorists).

So P(S|E) = no fucking way

I am also interested in how you understand the weighting of evidence under Bayes. Let us assume you are correct and this is an extraordinary claim, how much extra evidence do you require?

The key is you would require evidence that you would not see otherwise, i.e., actual physical evidence, kids with testimony, video tapes, the sort of stuff a guy with an AR-15 would go looking for on his way off the deep end. That makes P(E) super small, and P(S|E) large.

We don't have that here. The probability that some dumbass is going to come up with a conspiracy theory that conveniently makes shit up and other dumbasses are going to repeat it = 1.

Tl:dr You've misused Bayes to justify dismissal of the claim based on "rarity" and a bogus claim that the prosecutors are dumb and crazy.

bennyonesix wrote:I am particularly interested in how you decided this was an "extraordinary claim". Was this via Bayesian Analysis?

nafod wrote:Yes. My Bayesian prior is based on the fact that, prior to any evidence, you'd expect the former first lady and a former whitehouse chief of staff (or any two acquaintances on the planet) to have a probability of running a child sex ring of pretty much no fucking way, based on the ratio of acquaintances in the US to acquaintances that are running sex rings.

Ok. This is Popper's critique of Bayesian analysis: it is justificationism. All Bayes dooes is move the focus from actual evidence to a murky threshold inquiry into the "justness" of the charge. What you have done is to make the rule that child sex rings (which you admit exist btw) are entitled to a higher burden of proof than the vast majority of crimes. All conspiracies are rare. Moreover, all conspiracies conceal themselves. Does this not confound? Does this not incentivize conspiring? I have provided evidence of links between Clintons and the Podestas and two individuals who are clearly involved in activities involving sex and children (epstein and alefantis). More than that, I have shown Clinton involvement directly with epstein at the location where he conducts his activities. I have also provided evidence of recent child sex rings both here (congressional pages) and in europe (saville and dutroux). So, to say child sex ring claim you lose now because rare (which is what you are really doing) is wrong. Finally, the request here is not that guilt be established. The request is that an investigation be initiated. I hope by independent non gov actors because the law is quite simply dead in the US post BO. It is my contention that Bayes is already incorporated into the law via grand juries and prima facie requirements. And I am quite certain that the evidence I have provided passes either of those hurdles easily: especially with Epstein.

It does happen, but has to be in the .0000001% probability range. I mean, how many of your friends are running child sex rings?

P(sexring) = .000000000000001

So a good Bayesian looks at the P(sexring|evidence), i.e., the probability conditioned on the evidence. This is equal to...

P(S|E) = P(E|S) P(S)/P(E)

So probability of sex ring given evidence = probability you'd see that evidence given there is a sex ring (I'll assume 100%) x P(sex ring) (infinitesimal) divided by probability of seeing the evidence (approximately 1, since we are talking about fever swamp-dwelling conspiracy theorists).

So P(S|E) = no fucking way

No. This is wrong. Again all you've done is say: occurrence is rare and I don't like you therefore you lose now. P(sexring) is not infinitesimal. As I said, I introduced evidence of frequency. And the probability of seeing the evidence is not 1 because we are untermenschen either. You have produced no evidence of this. None. And it is not even an appropriate part of the analysis here. Unless you think Bayes argues child sex rings (which you admit exist) cannot be proven?

bennyonesix wrote:I am also interested in how you understand the weighting of evidence under Bayes. Let us assume you are correct and this is an extraordinary claim, how much extra evidence do you require?

nafod wrote:The key is you would require evidence that you would not see otherwise, i.e., actual physical evidence, kids with testimony, video tapes, the sort of stuff a guy with an AR-15 would go looking for on his way off the deep end. That makes P(E) super small, and P(S|E) large.

We don't have that here. The probability that some dumbass is going to come up with a conspiracy theory that conveniently makes shit up and other dumbasses are going to repeat it = 1.

You've gone wrong here. This is why I made my initial comment. This is the very same type of proof every claim must show. There is no qualitative difference in evidence required. And I have produced that very type of evidence. For example, there is a girl who had extensive photos of herself with epstein on his island and clinton on epstein's plane.

And once again, you are conflating establishment of guilt with the prima facie case. And you are also using Bayes to foreclose possibility of occurrence.


You use your irrational bias against the people who are pursuing this and an incorrect analysis of incidence of occurrence to foreclose the possibilty of the truth of the claim.

You do know that the "Conspiracy Theory" argument was created by the CIA to discredit critics of domestic activity by the agency?

No matter what you say Bayes claims, it is not sufficient to shout "it's a conspiracy! And they're crazy!".

Address the evidence.

But of course, that is the one thing you haven't done. I wonder why?

Have you even read any of it?

For my own part, I welcome a thorough investigation. I could be wrong. But I don't think I am.

Let's take an example to work through this.

Shaf claims he won the lottery the last two times.

You say ridiculous 1) infinitesimal chance you won and 2) you are a chunky degenerate freak of a schmoe shaf. Therefore you didn't win because the extraordinary evidence required to prove your extraordinary claim is so great as to not exist in reality.

You say this despite the fact that A) people do win the lottery twice (it is not whether shaf was likely to win it twice) and B) shaf's personal and unfortunate lifestyle choices are irrelevant.

Do you actually think pizzagate is real? It isn't clear.

I am not a schmoe. I just am sexual attracted to women whom are clearly anabolics users

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:I am not a schmoe. I just am sexual attracted to women whom are clearly anabolics users

Same, I don't want to wrestle them or be dominated, or whatever, I just want to have standard hetero sex with them.

I like my fitness women like I like my citrus: tart and lightly juiced.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:Do you actually think pizzagate is real? It isn't clear.

I think the political and economic elite of the elites engage in sex with children.

I think there is a network connecting them. And that they love to share evidence and stories of their exploits.

I think Epstein and Alefantis and Brock are procurers for the elite and blackmailers of the less than elite.

I think DC is run via the blackmail of gop officials selected by the party for ease of blackmail.

I think Kubrick knew and made Eyes Wide Shut as a confession.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:Do you actually think pizzagate is real? It isn't clear.

Have you looked at the evidence?

Hastert, Sasse, I forget the Democrats name here in the US?

Saville, Dutroux etc etc etc in the EU?

bennyonesix wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:Do you actually think pizzagate is real? It isn't clear.

Have you looked at the evidence?

Hastert, Sasse, I forget the Democrats name here in the US?

Saville, Dutroux etc etc etc in the EU?

You're an imbecile.

Yeah the feeling is more than mutual.

I have never once read anything you have written that was interesting or funny let alone insightful.

But I am sure that's just me failing to get what you do.

And I'll take that as a no you haven't read anything.

3.5 stars and $$ on Yelp.
The people have spoken.

bennyonesix wrote:Let's take an example to work through this.

Shaf claims he won the lottery the last two times.

You say ridiculous 1) infinitesimal chance you won and 2) you are a chunky degenerate freak of a schmoe shaf. Therefore you didn't win because the extraordinary evidence required to prove your extraordinary claim is so great as to not exist in reality.

You say this despite the fact that A) people do win the lottery twice (it is not whether shaf was likely to win it twice) and B) shaf's personal and unfortunate lifestyle choices are irrelevant.

There are two hypotheses at work here. 1) Shaf actually won the lottery. Twice. 2) Shaf is a lying sack of shit.

The evidence provided (Shaf says he won the lottery) agrees equally with both hypotheses, and so carries no information. It remains infinitesimally likely.

Same with the nut cases accusing Hillary and Podesta. The "evidence" agrees equally with either them doing it, or assholes making shit up. The "evidence" carries no information.