and the argument smells like a straw man and appeal to authority, comparing it to sherlock holmes
A humorous reference to literature is hardly an appeal to authority.
who incidentally /is obviously wrong/
He's not /obviously wrong/, he's subtly wrong in not explicitly acknowledging that the enumeration of options, not evaluation of their probability, is usually the difficult part. He's obviously right if you assume all possibilities are enumerated.
actually the fact that a probability is precisely 0 or 1 is very significant to its power in drawing conclusions
0 and 1 are not probabilities, and while certainty has power in drawing conclusions, it only really occurs in purely theoretical discussions.
what the court says is common sense...
Whether it's common sense or not does not make it valid.
oh, no, wait, it really isn't
Is that about it being common sense, or it offending academic views?
A humorous reference to literature is hardly an appeal to authority.
who incidentally /is obviously wrong/
He's not /obviously wrong/, he's subtly wrong in not explicitly acknowledging that the enumeration of options, not evaluation of their probability, is usually the difficult part. He's obviously right if you assume all possibilities are enumerated.
actually the fact that a probability is precisely 0 or 1 is very significant to its power in drawing conclusions
0 and 1 are not probabilities, and while certainty has power in drawing conclusions, it only really occurs in purely theoretical discussions.
what the court says is common sense...
Whether it's common sense or not does not make it valid.
oh, no, wait, it really isn't
Is that about it being common sense, or it offending academic views?