| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | | The Model | |
<
< | If we postulate that objective reality as to events exists, then the Truth about any crime can be represented as a random variable equal to a sequence of parameters, each of which is one element of observable objective reality. This is a gross simplification, but it allows for some intriguing suppositions. Every sensory observation of an event is essentially a sample of some parameters of the random variable called Truth. Meanwhile, Truth has an expected value calculated from the aggregation all of its parameters, which cannot all be sampled at once by any technology. Nevertheless, by the Law of Large Numbers, as the number of imperfect samples of Truth approaches infinity, the average of the results from all the samples will approach the expected value of Truth (NOTE: I am using the term "average" loosely). This means that given an infinite number of imperfect witnesses (samples), an adjudicator would be able to ascertain the Truth about any given crime. It also suggests that as there are more witnesses to any crime, the average of their observations will converge towards the Truth. | >
> | If we postulate that objective reality as to events exists, then the Truth about any crime | | | | |
<
< | A video is not “reality” is the sense that any individual video is a complete record of the full Truth. However, I presume that recording technology can indelibly capture more data than any human is capable of either measuring or retaining. If true, this means that a video of a crime is a larger sample of the Truth than a witness’ observation. Applying the Law of Large Numbers, if sample sizes are increased in every trial, then the rate at which the average of sample means converges towards the expected value of the population increases. Therefore, if I am right that video is a larger sample of reality than human observation, then adding videos of an event will lead to a faster approach towards the truth than adding an equal number of witness observations. | >
> | Why are you using
criminal process examples? They will distort your
analysis.
can be represented as a random variable equal to a sequence of parameters, each of which is one element of observable objective reality. This is a gross simplification, but it allows for some intriguing suppositions. Every sensory observation of an event is essentially a sample of some parameters of the random variable called Truth. Meanwhile, Truth has an expected value calculated from the aggregation all of its parameters, which cannot all be sampled at once by any technology.
The distortion has
already set in. Some of the facts in some crime situations, like
some automobile accidents, can be seen in a video, from one angle.
But most facts about which litigation (even criminal litigation)
occurs aren't objects in a field of view. The existence and
interpretation of a contract, or the behavior of a hypothetical
reasonable man, or the existence of a sufficient disclosure, or the
intent to incur reliance on a material misrepresentation, are facts
that cannot be captured on video. All this stuff about Truth
actually turns out to mean a few less important truths
sometimes.
Nevertheless, by the Law of Large Numbers, as the number of imperfect samples of Truth approaches infinity, the average of the results from all the samples will approach the expected value of Truth (NOTE: I am using the term "average" loosely). This means that given an infinite number of imperfect witnesses (samples), an adjudicator would be able to ascertain the Truth about any given crime. It also suggests that as there are more witnesses to any crime, the average of their observations will converge towards the Truth.
So that things reported
by large numbers of eye witnesses are more likely to be true than
those reported by a smaller number? Or is this only true of video
cameras? In which case, what's become of the argument from numbers?
A video is not “reality” is the sense that any individual video is a complete record of the full Truth. However, I presume that recording technology can indelibly capture more data than any human is capable of either measuring or retaining.
Either yes, or no.
Mostly, no. Now what?
Moreover, you're not really talking about the camera, are you?
You're talking about the memory which the camera feeds. And the
issues about that memory aren't solely how much they "capture" but
how they keep it and how we know. So why are we talking about video
only? Why aren't you saying "because Google knows more and more
about everything, pretty soon all trials will only require testimony
from Google, and then everything will be perfect because we will have
Truth"? Probably you understand why that's nonsense, yet the video
cameras connected to Google are somehow different. Who, from your
point of view, is to be cross-examined? Or is it your point that
video makes cross-examination of witnesses unnecessary?
If true, this means that a video of a crime is a larger sample of the Truth than a witness’ observation. Applying the Law of Large Numbers, if sample sizes are increased in every trial, then the rate at which the average of sample means converges towards the expected value of the population increases. Therefore, if I am right that video is a larger sample of reality than human observation, then adding videos of an event will lead to a faster approach towards the truth than adding an equal number of witness observations.
The essence of this sweeping argument is two claims: (1) Objective reality exists and can be represented by a random variable equal to all of its parameters
This is nonsense. What did you mean to say?
and (2) Videos are larger samples of the Truth than witness observations. Robustly defending these two claims is beyond the limited scope of this exposition.
No, that's weaseling
out. What you mean is that you have an inkling this position is
indefensible and you're not going to try. | | | | |
<
< | The essence of this sweeping argument is two claims: (1) Objective reality exists and can be represented by a random variable equal to all of its parameters and (2) Videos are larger samples of the Truth than witness observations. Robustly defending these two claims is beyond the limited scope of this exposition. Moreover, I am consciously setting aside the complex problem of translating any record of the Truth into something presentable/interpretable in a courtroom. Nonetheless, if the reader will stipulate to the validity of these two claims, then we may be able to do some work with their implications. | >
> | Moreover, I am consciously setting aside the complex problem of translating any record of the Truth into something presentable/interpretable in a courtroom. Nonetheless, if the reader will stipulate to the validity of these two claims, then we may be able to do some work with their implications. | | | | |
>
> | Not going to
happen. | | | Application
The prevalence of areas falling under overlapping zones of video surveillance is increasing. Certain cities like London or neighborhoods like Morningside Heights, have few street corners that aren’t under observation. Crimes occurring on a street corner like Broadway and W 112th St might be captured by six cameras from Chase Bank, Citibank, both bank’s ATMs, Columbia University, and Duane Reade. The limited nature of my simplistic analysis leaves me unable to ascertain whether the aggregation of the data in all six video feeds would produce some semblance of the Truth that could be claimed to be objective. What I can claim is that the more cameras added, the closer the composite observations approach the Truth and that the number of cameras is increasing over time. | |
>
> | Only for that rather
tiny segment of the world's useful information that can be caught on
a video camera pointed at the street. | | | There is also a rapid proliferation of cellphone cameras, which have turned pedestrians into walking camcorders. On Saint Patrick’s Day, less than a block from my former apartment in Baltimore, a man was brutally beaten, stripped naked in the street, and robbed. (Source). Numerous independently recorded videos of the event taken by cellphone cameras were posted on the web. Because some videos were taken at poor angles, poor resolution, turned on halfway through, or turned off halfway in, each individual video failed to capture all of the elements of the crime. However, aggregation of all of the myriad videos shed light upon the commencement of the crime, its aftermath, and even provided clear captures of the faces of the perpetrators. These videos allowed investigators to capture the perpetrators and bring charges for crimes that would have otherwise been very unlikely to have reached a courtroom because the accused were only caught after social media users identified their faces by comparing posted videos to public profile pictures. | |
>
> | But that doesn't mean
that's the only way people ever were identified or caught, or that
crimes previously went unsolved. To establish your proposition you'd
have to show a great deal more than you have
showed. | | | Limitations
The human agents recording videos might intentionally manipulate them to skew the representation of the depicted events. Nevertheless, as long as the number of manipulated videos is small compared with the total number of videos, then introduced bias ought to remain relatively slight. When Hitchcock showed moviegoers a shower scene in “Psycho,” most thought that they had seen Janet Leigh naked. They hadn’t. They had been duped. Perhaps someone manipulating their gaze in another way could have similarly duped them even if they had been standing in person in the bathroom at the Bates Motel. However, if there were numerous security and mobile phone cameras in the room, each independently capturing the event, the bias introduced from chicanery perpetrated by only a few filmmakers would be minimal. | |
>
> | You don't need me to
explain the fallacy in that argument. | | | Perhaps an even more damning limitation of the foregoing model and its application is that video cannot directly prevent the conscious or subconscious biases of fact-finders from skewing factual interpretation of even the most indisputable evidence. This was starkly exemplified by the 1992 acquittal of the officers who beat Rodney King. Nevertheless, I believe that as factual evidence becomes more palpably indisputable, social forces far more powerful than the law may curtail the flexibility of fact-finders to disregard resonant Truth.
-- By KieranCoe - 22 Apr 2012 | |
>
> |
The problem here is still lack of substantive editing at step one.
You had an idea: "there are so many more video capturing devices than
there used to be, there's going to be more video evidence, more
completely covering more places and events." This is true, but the
reasons why (1) that's not admissible evidence; (2) no matter how
many cameras there are, most things don't happen in their field of
view; and (3) most facts are not subject to being proven by video of
any kind, should have been clear to you, after I sent you back to
consider objections. You dealt with the one particular objection I
raised last time by changing your text to use the "this is an
objection but nevertheless I believe" move, which isn't really
dealing with at all.
So I have to say again what I said last time, which I find
disappointing. Take your idea back to the shop. Consider its
limitations and the possible objections. Modify it consequently, and
shape a new development around it.
| | | \ No newline at end of file |
|