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
    Under plausible assumptions, the likelihood ratio of nake... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

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

    Under plausible assumptions, the likelihood ratio of naked statistical evidence is significantly greater than one.

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    If the likelihood ratio is greater than one, the evidence does provide discrimin...The likelihood ratio of naked statistical evidence is significantly greater than...

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Skepticism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    The likelihood ratio of naked statistical evidence is significantly gr...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...84%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    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

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective