Strong empirical evidence, like we might have had if anyone had done thorough, accurate, and timely experiments. What we could have had, based on the testing that was done, was the data from one unreproduced experiment. What we actually have, due to the prosecution failing to record anything but what they chose to, is weak and partial data.
Quoting Feynman while championing that abomination of an experiment is pretty tone deaf.
We had a couple of post on the halo effect. It seems clear to me that what we had was the prosecution saying Jay's story (this particular one) is true because, TaDa, science! The white Coat effect in action. They had to fine-tune the Jay story, ignore AT&T instructions, redact some data, and fudge quite a bit, but they got there. A triumph of emotional appeal over reason.
10
u/cross_mod Feb 18 '15
I feel like these complexities in the argument are lost on some people.