Theory of Knowledge - Course Companion for Students Marija Uzunova Dang Arvin Singh Uzunov Dang

Univrsity of California Brkly
Th
ias issu is xplaind in this
gndr
Clark was ausd of having killd hr
Sally
hild at 11 wks of ag and hr sond
first
at 8 wks of ag. Sir Roy Madow, a
hild
and onsultant padiatriian, tstifid
profssor
an xprt witnss that th proaility of two
as
in th sam family dying from suddn
hildrn
dath syndrom (SIDS, also alld ot
infant
was approximatly 1 in 73 million. This
dath)
a gross undrstimat, arrivd at y taking
was
proaility of a singl SIDS dath (1 in
th
and squaring it, with th assumption that
8,543)
proaility of suh daths is unorrlatd
th
infants. Howvr, that assumption
twn
unjustifid, and in fat th opposit would
was
tru if a gnti prdisposition to SIDS
Rporting on th inidnt, Ray Hill
xists.
onludd that “aftr a first ot dath th
(2004)
of a sond om gratly inrasd”,
hans
a ot dath mothr is ausd
“Whn
murdr, th prosution somtims
of
a tati suh as th following.
mploys
th parnts ar afflunt, in a stal
If
and non-smoking, th
rlationship
will laim that th hans
prosution
th dath ing natural ar gratly
of
and y impliation that th
rdud,
trms: Ar univrsity
Sarh
iasd? Simpson’s
admissions
inrasd. But this impliation is
gratly
fals, aus th vry sam fators
totally
mak a family low risk for ot dath
whih
mak it low risk for murdr.”
also
faulty mathmatis did not stop thr.
Th
if th 1-in-73 million assssmnt was
Evn
this was not th proaility of
aurat,
innon, ut rathr an a priori
Clark’s
that ndd to wighd
proaility
th a priori proailitis of th
against
of thm vry unlikly—
altrnativs—all
wr:
whih
1. two sussiv SIDS daths in th
2. doul homiid
3. othr possiilitis (suh as on homiid
was an instan of th “prosutor’s
It
Cruially, proaility stimats
fallay”.
outoms 1 and 2 should hav n
of
in th statistial analysis of th
ompard
Clark was onvitd in 1999.
prosution.
Royal Statistial Soity raisd onrns
Th
th dision, issuing a prss rlas
aout
statd th following.
that
th rnt highly-puliisd as of R v. Sally Clark, a mdial xprt witnss drw on pulishd
“In
to otain a figur for th frquny of suddn infant dath syndrom in familis having som of
studis
haratristis of th dfndant’s family. H wnt on to squar this figur to otain a valu of 1 in 73
th
for th frquny of two ass of SIDS in suh a family.
million
approah is, in gnral, statistially invalid. It would only valid if SIDS ass aros
This
within familis, an assumption that would nd to justifid mpirially. Not only
indpndntly
no suh mpirial justifiation providd in th as, ut thr ar vry strong a priori rasons for
was
that th assumption will fals. Thr may wll unknown gnti or nvironmntal
supposing
that prdispos familis to SIDS, so that a sond as within th family oms muh mor
fators
likly.
IV. Ethics
IV. Ethics
paradox part 2 YouTu
linkd vido.
Box 11.5: Faulty statistics and the “prosecutor’s fallacy”
(Hill 2004)
family
and also statd th following.
and on SIDS).
351