Is the "Amanda Knox" thread an example of bad skeptisism?

[s_pepys]

hey all

Have read the amanda knox thread from begining to end and its struck me that conspiracies and uninformed conjecture can even make their way on to the jref of all places! I was wondering if anyone else has read this thread and has any thoughts, similar or otherwise.

thanks

 

[lionking]

All I can say is that there's more emotional investment in that thread than any other I've seen

 

[Sean84]

hey all

Have read the amanda knox thread from begining to end

Aside from some of the stuff that winds up in AAH I have actively avoided that thread.

and its struck me that conspiracies and uninformed conjecture can even make their way on to the jref of all places!

That goes on here all the time. In every sub-forum. In the majority of threads. It's only a matter of frequency and degree.

Skepticism is not a prerequisite for posting here. Being crazy as a loon won't get you the boot. Most people probably fit somewhere in the middle.

I was wondering if anyone else has read this thread and has any thoughts, similar or otherwise.

thanks

If there are a lot of people emotionally invested in the thread then it stands to reason they would have a greater tendency to argue from bias rather than logic. That's human nature, and yes, "bad skepticism".

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

For what it is worth, there is some evidence to suggest that the girl may not have been guilty. And a good deal of evidence that the police could have handled the case better and that the trial wasn't completely fair.

So anyone who thinks the girl wasn't given a fair shake isn't necessarily a bad skeptic.

 

[Sean84]

I didn't read the thread.

I was speaking in general terms that when people have an emotional investment they have a greater tendency to act on their biases. Bias is bad skepticism.

I don't know if that's the case with the Knox thread nor which side or member* is acting bad, skeptically.

*ETA: If any

 

[SezMe]

Have read the amanda knox thread from begining to end ...

You did? All, what, 20,000 posts? How long did that take? Are you particularly interested in the case? Did you post there? I ask because, like Sean84, I avoid that sinkhole like the plague.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

hey all

Have read the amanda knox thread from begining to end and its struck me that conspiracies and uninformed conjecture can even make their way on to the jref of all places! I was wondering if anyone else has read this thread and has any thoughts, similar or otherwise.

thanks

The amanda knox thread? Singular? You have some more reading to do...

 

[Baylor]

You did? All, what, 20,000 posts? How long did that take? Are you particularly interested in the case? Did you post there? I ask because, like Sean84, I avoid that sinkhole like the plague.

I think it's closer to 27,000.

Some 16,000 for the first and currently 11,000+ for round 2.

 

[lionking]

I've read a lot of it - it's not as onerous as people might think because many of the themes are repeated and the pro and con arguments about, for example, the bloody footprint in the bathroom, become well recognized and it's quite possible to skip over a lot of posts.

I lean to one side of the issue, but am open to changing my view. The appeals will go a long way towards making my final decision.

It's interesting that in one of my few posts there I asked if those who thought Amanda innocent would change their minds if her appeal failed. I was firstly criticized for being unskeptical by asking this question - it should be crystal clear to me that she was innocent, said some. Others said they would not change their minds as a failed appeal would simply reinforce the corrupt investigation and trial.

On the other hand, some of those who thought Amanda guilty (in a minority of those regularly posting in this thread) said they would accept a final not guilty verdict.

I don't think the Amanda Knox thread is a high water mark of skepticism

 

[Doc Daneeka]

All I can say is that there's more emotional investment in that thread than any other I've seen

At first, I was sure that this statement was hyperbole.

Having read here and there in the thread, I see that you are serious.

Wow. I mean, wow.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I've read a lot of it - it's not as onerous as people might think because many of the themes are repeated and the pro and con arguments about, for example, the bloody footprint in the bathroom, become well recognized and it's quite possible to skip over a lot of posts.

I lean to one side of the issue, but am open to changing my view. The appeals will go a long way towards making my final decision.

It's interesting that in one of my few posts there I asked if those who thought Amanda innocent would change their minds if her appeal failed. I was firstly criticized for being unskeptical by asking this question - it should be crystal clear to me that she was innocent, said some. Others said they would not change their minds as a failed appeal would simply reinforce the corrupt investigation and trial.

On the other hand, some of those who thought Amanda guilty (in a minority of those regularly posting in this thread) said they would accept a final not guilty verdict.

I don't think the Amanda Knox thread is a high water mark of skepticism

If you think that automatically assuming that an authority's opinion (the court's) is correct regardless of the actual evidence is good skepticism, you've got a pretty funny idea of good skepticism. As I said when you asked that question, if the court process digs up new evidence then that could certainly change the minds of actual skeptics. If it reaches the same opinion the last court did based on the same evidence, I don't see why skeptics who thought the first court got it wrong should think "Well, appealing to an authority once is a fallacy, but clearly if an authority says something twice then we can forget the evidence and just believe the authority".

Of course exactly the same argument applied to those who believe Knox to be guilty: If they change their minds on a court's say-so without any change in the available evidence I don't think they're good skeptics either.

However if you want examples of non-skeptical thinking, I still haven't quite gotten over the guy who said that Knox and Sollecito deserved to be convicted because they could not prove that they were innocent, or the guy who said that he would still believe beyond reasonable doubt that they were guilty even if we showed that the prosecution narrative was complete rubbish and that there was strong evidence that the accused were at home using their computers when Meredith Kercher was murdered.

 

[Mary_H]

hey all

Have read the amanda knox thread from begining to end and its struck me that conspiracies and uninformed conjecture can even make their way on to the jref of all places! I was wondering if anyone else has read this thread and has any thoughts, similar or otherwise.

thanks

Are you attributing the conspiracy theories and uninformed conjecture to any point of view in particular?

 

[Dragoonster]

That's still going on? It was hot and heavy months ago before I took a long break. I don't see what new stuff could've been found for the case inbetween, or maybe people are still arguing interpretations of old stuff?

Read some of it back then and it struck me as an unsolveable, light-on-real-facts subjective thing. Compounded in difficulty by likely being a different judicial system than most of the posters here have experience with.

And perhaps an offshoot of Missing White Woman Syndrome. Are there similar 10,000+ post threads on Tookie Williams and Ruben Carter? Or is it more obvious that they were guilty, but not Amanda Knox? Ah well, easy and wrong for me to build strawmen. Maybe those and other non-white-female cases would've been similarly debated if the forum had existed when they were ongoing or just ended.

(hm, that reminds me of the also-lengthy Round-the-World-Sailing White Woman thread)

 

[Mary_H]

That's still going on? It was hot and heavy months ago before I took a long break. I don't see what new stuff could've been found for the case inbetween, or maybe people are still arguing interpretations of old stuff?

Read some of it back then and it struck me as an unsolveable, light-on-real-facts subjective thing. Compounded in difficulty by likely being a different judicial system than most of the posters here have experience with.

And perhaps an offshoot of Missing White Woman Syndrome. Are there similar 10,000+ post threads on Tookie Williams and Ruben Carter? Or is it more obvious that they were guilty, but not Amanda Knox? Ah well, easy and wrong for me to build strawmen. Maybe those and other non-white-female cases would've been similarly debated if the forum had existed when they were ongoing or just ended.

(hm, that reminds me of the also-lengthy Round-the-World-Sailing White Woman thread)

Some of the new stuff is the result of the judge releasing the "motivations report," which told how the court came to its conclusions. That gave us a whole new set of data to argue about.

Also, a lot of the discussion comes from what we've been referring to as "whack-a-mole," which usually takes the form of someone repeating some information they believe to be true, followed by a number of people demonstrating it's not true. A couple weeks (or less) later, someone will come back with the same information, and the mole has to be whacked all over again. It's time-consuming!

Another difference is that now a lot of independent scientists who have had access to what information is available about the forensics (for example, from the motivations report) have done their own analyses and itemized the problems with the court's findings.

 

[Sean84]

Did the Knox thread get set to moderated status or something?

Go back from whence you came. I have a virgin lamb's large intestine stuffed with garlic bulbs and I'm not afraid to whip it around wildly...

 

[Dragoonster]

Some of the new stuff is the result of the judge releasing the "motivations report," which told how the court came to its conclusions. That gave us a whole new set of data to argue about.

Also, a lot of the discussion comes from what we've been referring to as "whack-a-mole," which usually takes the form of someone repeating some information they believe to be true, followed by a number of people demonstrating it's not true. A couple weeks (or less) later, someone will come back with the same information, and the mole has to be whacked all over again. It's time-consuming!

Another difference is that now a lot of independent scientists who have had access to what information is available about the forensics (for example, from the motivations report) have done their own analyses and itemized the problems with the court's findings.

Ah, thanks for the update!

I hate "whack-a-moles" in long threads. My sympathies

I wonder if there's an internet fallacy there--Bury By Postcount or something, kind of like Wall of Text or Link-spamming but rather counting on people not expending the effort to find earlier posts from 1,000 previous pages.

 

[Mary_H]

Did the Knox thread get set to moderated status or something?

Go back from whence you came. I have a virgin lamb's large intestine stuffed with garlic bulbs and I'm not afraid to whip it around wildly...

We have been put on moderated status more than once. We are a salty bunch.

And there is PLENTY of room there for talk about intestines -- just do a search and you'll see what I mean.

 

[Mary_H]

Ah, thanks for the update!

I hate "whack-a-moles" in long threads. My sympathies

I wonder if there's an internet fallacy there--Bury By Postcount or something, kind of like Wall of Text or Link-spamming but rather counting on people not expending the effort to find earlier posts from 1,000 previous pages.

Well, there's that, but I am actually talking about the SAME people coming back repeatedly to peddle their wares, unrepressed by previous whacks.

 

[lionking]

Well, there's that, but I am actually talking about the SAME people coming back repeatedly to peddle their wares, unrepressed by previous whacks.

I should say that it is not universally acknowledged that all the "moles" are effectively despatched.

 

[Mary_H]

I should say that it is not universally acknowledged that all the "moles" are effectively despatched.

That is certainly the crux of the disagreement.