Then I don't know what point you are making.
I'm starting to wonder. I've been saying the same the same, as I thought it, fairly innocuous point for two days. Post-hoc reasoning is to some extent inevitable. It is much easier to accept explanations that fit in with our existing beliefs. My point was that many of the cases where pro-innocence posters look at "guilters" and say "how can they possibly buy that explanation", or vice versa, is down to this. If you were favorably disposed to the claim that Amanda was guilty, you would find it much easier to accept post-hoc explanations for her guilt. Since you don't you find it much easier to accept post-hoc explanations for her innocence.
Is this really a contentious thing to say?
The trouble with this is that the "guilter" view is not based on fact in the first place (but on the mental ramblings of an out-of-control prosecutor). "Post-hoc rationalization" can't do any more than add to the mythology - it doesn't give it any more validity.
Again, a post-hoc rationalization is not generally a valid form of reasoning.
And I don't agree that the rationalization gets any easier or is even possible, merely based on the belief in a particular view. Take the example I have been giving: in order to believe that Raff's kitchen knife was the murder weapon, Massei had to invent this nonsensical scenario where Amanda was carrying it about with her (in her "large bag") for protection! And nobody on the "guilter" side has come up with any specific sequence of events on November 1 that actually matches the known facts.
I did, but people didn't like it or weren't very interested in working on a guilty scenario. I'm the wrong person to come up with a scenario as my knowledge of the totality of the evidence that needs to be accounted for isn't anything like as good as some and in any case, I don't subscribe to a particular version of the events of that night. The only criticisms that I can recall was that I hadn't accounted for Nara, and "Amanda wouldn't do that". In my version Nara was mistaken.
Having said all that, you again miss my point. You do not accept their guilt, hence you don't accept the post-hoc rationalization. Were you to accept guilt you would find it much easier to accept such a rationalization as Massei does. I suspect many "guilters" believe the conspiracy theory (or more nuanced versions of it) version of the case is a post-hoc rationalization as well.
Don't know what you mean by this.
It's a cartoon about post-hoc reasoning.
Really? I'd be interested in seeing it.
There are plenty of poorly designed, unreplicated studies and testimonials. The point here is that if you believe in homeopathy and go looking for evidence to support your belief, you will find it. You can also come up with theories about how homeopathy works, and find evidence to support them as well. Of course, if you go looking for evidence against homeopathy, you'll find a bunch of that.
I think you're reading things into my posts that weren't there - what you say is perfectly true, but it's not in conflict with anything I've typed.
You said that the scientific process is that you try to confirm your theory. Most people would say that this is wrong and that you are supposed to go out and try to refute your theory (whether this is what individual scientists actually do is another question). A theory is accepted when you have failed to refute it, not when you've found a bunch of evidence in support of it. There are very few theories so pathologically rubbish that you can't find any evidence at all in favor of them.
