Page 3 of 4

What is weak evidence and why does it matter?

MH 17: Weak Evidence Matters

March 1, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Discounting Weak Evidence

One pitfall to avoid is prematurely discounting seemingly weak evidence. Weak evidence can take many forms. It could be evidence that seems very unlikely under all hypotheses. Or it could be evidence that is non-intuitive and doesn’t seem to fit what we consider “conclusive” evidence.

When evaluating evidence, it’s easy to get distracted looking for “irrefutable” evidence (more on that in an upcoming blog post). However, that’s a mistake. What’s really important is the ratio between how likely evidence is under the hypotheses.

Continue reading

Evidence, like snowflakes, adds up

Evidence in Flight 370: Snowflakes Add Up

February 15, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Strength in Numbers

How much does a snowflake weigh? How about a drop of water? If you’ve ever shoveled snow, or picked up a large jug of water, you know that the weight adds up. The same principle holds true with evaluating evidence. When starting an analysis, we often find little hints that slightly support one hypothesis over the other. Many people might think that these clues wouldn’t really have an impact. Or they might assume that a piece of evidence with a significant influence on the hypotheses renders other evidence meaningless.

However, just like snow, those little pieces of evidence can add up. It’s hard to shovel up thousands of snowflakes at a time (even though individually they’re almost weightless). Likewise, enough evidence pointing in the same direction can have a weighty influence (even if each individual “proof” is not that strong independently).

 

Continue reading

Distilling the essence

Getting to the Essence

February 1, 2017 / / 0 Comments

On Monday, John went to the mall. John left Green’s Grocery at 7:47 AM and drove home in his 2007 Honda Pilot. John forgot his blue umbrella in the store. That night John’s neighbor Martha, a retired engineer who lives down the block from him, called him. Martha had found the umbrella and was coming to return it. Is that a miracle? Or a largely predictable outcome? The answer depends on which of the many coincidences we consider.

Continue reading

Calculating inputs: A game of numbers

Calculating Accurate Inputs

January 17, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Serial: A Game of Numbers

Every analyst has their methods: take a poll, measure social media buzz, weigh various key factors. Rootclaim’s analysis of Serial: Who killed Hae Min Lee provides a good example of how the Rootclaim system uses hard numbers in order to “calculate reality” – to determine mathematically which hypothesis is the most likely.

Rootclaim recently took on one of the most controversial criminal convictions: that of Adnan Syed, sentenced to jail for murdering his ex-girlfriend Hae Min Lee. Syed’s conviction has been featured in the podcasts Serial and Undisclosed, and followers of the case have debated the minutiae on forums such as Reddit. Until now, discussion forums have focused on how a few particular pieces of evidence proved one hypothesis or another. Rootclaim has put together the first concerted effort to gather all the relevant information into one cohesive analysis.

Continue reading

Child receiving vaccine

Innoculate Your Arguments with Data and Reason

January 1, 2017 / / 0 Comments

The MMR Vaccine Controversy

The controversy over whether and how often to vaccinate children remains a volatile one. But how much does this debate match the empirical data and objective reasoning? The Rootclaim analysis of the MMR vaccine and its alleged ties to autism illustrates the challenges of objective, rational decision-making. Continue reading

Unraveling the Mystery of Trump’s Hair

December 15, 2016 / / 0 Comments

What’s the Deal with Trump’s Hair?

Given Donald Trump’s flair for controversy, it’s not surprising that even his hair would be the subject of debate. In “What is the story behind Donald Trump’s hair?”, Rootclaim analyzes the most popular claims about the Donald’s trademark hair-covering to cut through the uncertainty.

Continue reading

Rootclaim: Calculating Reality

December 6, 2016 / / 0 Comments

Today we’re officially announcing the launch of Rootclaim – a collaborative analysis platform that outperforms human reasoning in understanding complex issues.

Calculating All Sides of the Story

The platform integrates all available evidence, assesses it for credibility and then uses probabilistic models to reach conclusions about the likelihood of competing hypotheses.
Continue reading

False Dilemma

by zeevveez Published on: www.liberal.gr/arthro/62836/amyna--diplomatia/2016/oi-kai..

False Dilemma Fallacies–Finding the Gray

December 1, 2016 / / 0 Comments

The False Dilemma

The Fallacy of Presumption can take many forms. One common example is the false dilemma. This fallacy is also known as the false binary or false dichotomy. As its name indicates, the false dilemma divides a scenario into only two alternatives. When the situation calls for a yes/no answer, that works fine. But in many situations, things are more complex. Thus the false dilemma tricks you into choosing between two imprecise, inaccurate or otherwise flawed options.

Continue reading

Strawman

The Straw Man and Other Fallacies of Relevance

November 15, 2016 / / 0 Comments

What do ad hominems, appeals to authority, red herrings and the straw man argument have in common? Each of these is an example of the Fallacy of Relevance.

Fallacies of Relevance are logical fallacies in which a key part of the argument is actually irrelevant to its conclusion. People often find these fallacies hard to detect.  Understanding how to construct and take apart an argument can help you avoid falling for such fallacies.

Continue reading

Circular

Avoid Circular Reasoning with Rootclaim

October 25, 2016 / / 0 Comments

Circular reasoning is a common logical fallacy. It is a form of the Fallacy of Presumption. In these fallacies, an argument sounds coherent and compelling, but is actually dependent on one or more faulty or unproven arguments . In circular reasoning, each claim loops around and rests on the assumption of one of the other claims. Thus, no single starting point is ever conclusively and independently established.

“Donald Trump says that he is trustworthy. But Donald Trump is a liar. You can’t trust liars. When Donald Trump says that he is trustworthy, he is lying.”

“Crooked Hillary is crooked because she’s untrustworthy. She can’t be trustworthy because she’s crooked.”

Continue reading

« Older posts Newer posts »

About Rootclaim

Rootclaim is a collaborative analysis platform that transforms how people understand complex issues by combining the power and reach of crowdsourced information with the mathematical validity of Bayesian statistics.

Cover image credit: "Cross section of a trees’ roots." by Aaron Escober, has been modified, used under CC BY 2.0

© 2024 Rootclaim Blog

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑