![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Jul. 15th, 2005 04:14 pmGiving evidence, Sir Roy defended the calculations he used to arrive at the 73 million to one figure. (BBC report here)
No, he still doesn't get it. He gave evidence saying that if two or more children died in the same family at different times, the probability should be calculated as if they were totally independent.
And therefore, since the chance for the death of one child is in the thousands, the chances for two is in the millions. Ergo, if it did happen, the cause could only be murder.
Ah, hello? Anyone there? You start from an assumption that the causes of two deaths are unconnected. You then get odds saying that two deaths happening is exceedingly improbable. You then get the two deaths, proving that it can happen. So you then say that the causes of the two deaths are connected (reasonable) -- and that the cause must therefore be murder.
Duh! There is no connection, and therefore the connection must be murder? Could he really not see the logical fallacy in that?
Was it really not possible that other connections might exist? Like shared genetics, giving shared predispositions in a shared environment?
And yet he still defends his evidence.
No, he still doesn't get it. He gave evidence saying that if two or more children died in the same family at different times, the probability should be calculated as if they were totally independent.
And therefore, since the chance for the death of one child is in the thousands, the chances for two is in the millions. Ergo, if it did happen, the cause could only be murder.
Ah, hello? Anyone there? You start from an assumption that the causes of two deaths are unconnected. You then get odds saying that two deaths happening is exceedingly improbable. You then get the two deaths, proving that it can happen. So you then say that the causes of the two deaths are connected (reasonable) -- and that the cause must therefore be murder.
Duh! There is no connection, and therefore the connection must be murder? Could he really not see the logical fallacy in that?
Was it really not possible that other connections might exist? Like shared genetics, giving shared predispositions in a shared environment?
And yet he still defends his evidence.
