I had a choice between bumping this thread and politarding up a Probability thread. I chose the latter, but now I'm changing my mind; I think bumping a Sklansky thread is the lesser of two evils (I know, I can already hear the boooos).
I said in
that thread: "David, [...] do you think this radio host, or the 90% of listeners who are convinced by his logic, should be deciding people's guilt/innocence and life/death based on whether their intuition says P(guilt) ≥ 50.001%?"
And if yes, how do you reconcile that with your advocacy of voter tests (if I'm not mistaken) and meritocracy in general? You want random juries given so much power over someone's life, but not voters who are voting on things that affect them?
Also, how are juries to determine probabilities with a low margin of error when most of the variables in a case aren't even quantitative? Laypeople are supposed to have great intuition of subjective probabilities come trial time, when the rest of the time they can't intuit that the table you're at doesn't matter, unknown random mucked cards don't matter, etc?
(I don't remember David addressing any of these things before the thread morphed into a discussion about rape trials.)