Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    The likelihood ratio of naked statistical evidence is sig... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The likelihood ratio of naked statistical evidence is significantly greater than one, undermining the argument that naked statistical evidence has no evidential value.

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Bayesian confirmation theory holds that evidence E confirms hypothesis H when P(H|E) > P(H), which is equivalent to a likelihood ratio exceeding one.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Naked statistical evidence, such as knowing 80% of a fleet's buses caused accidents, raises P(guilt|evidence) above the prior, satisfying the Bayesian confirmation threshold.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, by the logic of Bayesian epistemology as defended by Howson and Urbach, naked statistical evidence meets the formal criterion for genuine evidential support.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.L.J. Cohen's distinction between Pascalian and Baconian probability does not negate that naked statistics carry Pascalian probabilistic weight sufficient to shift posterior beliefs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ronald Allen and Michael Pardo's relative plausibility theory acknowledges that statistical base rates legitimately constrain which narrative explanations are plausible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If statistical evidence constrains the plausibility space of competing hypotheses, it performs a discriminating evidential function that is definitionally incompatible with having no evidential value.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Under plausible assumptions, the likelihood ratio of naked statistical evidence is significantly greater than one.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the likelihood ratio is greater than one, the evidence does provide discriminating evidential value.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Bayesian confirmation theory holds that evidence E confirms hypothesis H when P(...If statistical evidence constrains the plausibility space of competing hypothese...If the likelihood ratio is greater than one, the evidence does provide discrimin...L.J. Cohen's distinction between Pascalian and Baconian probability does not neg...
    +4 moreShow less
    Naked statistical evidence, such as knowing 80% of a fleet's buses caused accide...Ronald Allen and Michael Pardo's relative plausibility theory acknowledges that ...Therefore, by the logic of Bayesian epistemology as defended by Howson and Urbac...Under plausible assumptions, the likelihood ratio of naked statistical evidence ...

    Similar

    Under plausible assumptions, the likelihood ratio of naked statistical...93%The likelihood ratio of naked statistical evidence in cases such as Pr...88%In cases such as Prisoner and Gatecrasher, the likelihood ratio of nak...87%If the likelihood ratio is greater than one, the evidence does provide...86%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: legal-probabilism
    View source passageHide passage
    Fifth, another line of response for legal probabilists is to concede that the paradoxes of naked statistical evidence demonstrate the inadequacy of simple probabilistic thresholds as proof standards (Urbaniak 2019). Instead of the posterior probability of liability, a number of scholars have focused on the likelihood ratio \(P(E\pmid H)/P(E \pmid H')\). Their argument is that, even though naked statistical evidence can support a high posterior probability of liability, the likelihood ratio of th
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit