Nazaroo
New member
In law courts, the paradoxical situation where ALL witnesses agree,
or where the stories of several witnesses agree far too closely
is well known, and triggers the counter-suspicion of collusion,
which it turns out isn't as uncommon as we would like.
Yet somehow, outside of the courtroom
people all too often still take unanimity as an indication of truth, accuracy or scientific correctness.
A great example was just posted by "Clete" here in the Moon Landing thread:
Never mind that the claim that 'too many people' would have to be lying,
or that too many people would even know about the deception is itself problematic.
Historical examples abound in which not only were large numbers of people involved
in various deceptions and conspiracies, and worse, the idea of 'profit' overriding honesty
in the business world is rampant and commonplace nowadays.
The inevitable result of general corruption for profit and escape from culpability,
is that people turn out to be far better at keeping secrets for long time periods,
and in greater numbers than expected.
In fact, the naive expectation that 'people are too incompetent and stupid and unreliable
as individuals to allow any success in large scale or long-time operations turns out
to be far too 'soft' a generalization to be counted on, as Clete does in the case of the Moon Landing.
New scientific evidence quantifies the strange and paradoxical fact that
two many witnesses or too unanimous an agreement of sources is as dangerous
and unreliable as too few witnesses or too little agreement.
Thus again paradoxically, the Biblical Law of Two or Three Witnesses
turns out to be the best quantity of agreement possible in a world where
error in either extreme leads to injustice and false convictions, false identifications,
and false findings of fact.
The Biblical God knows best.
or where the stories of several witnesses agree far too closely
is well known, and triggers the counter-suspicion of collusion,
which it turns out isn't as uncommon as we would like.
Yet somehow, outside of the courtroom
people all too often still take unanimity as an indication of truth, accuracy or scientific correctness.
A great example was just posted by "Clete" here in the Moon Landing thread:
Clete said:
Never mind that the claim that 'too many people' would have to be lying,
or that too many people would even know about the deception is itself problematic.
Historical examples abound in which not only were large numbers of people involved
in various deceptions and conspiracies, and worse, the idea of 'profit' overriding honesty
in the business world is rampant and commonplace nowadays.
The inevitable result of general corruption for profit and escape from culpability,
is that people turn out to be far better at keeping secrets for long time periods,
and in greater numbers than expected.
In fact, the naive expectation that 'people are too incompetent and stupid and unreliable
as individuals to allow any success in large scale or long-time operations turns out
to be far too 'soft' a generalization to be counted on, as Clete does in the case of the Moon Landing.
New scientific evidence quantifies the strange and paradoxical fact that
two many witnesses or too unanimous an agreement of sources is as dangerous
and unreliable as too few witnesses or too little agreement.
Why too much evidence can be a bad thing January 4, 2016 by Lisa Zyga report 
In a police line-up, the probability that an individual is guilty increases with the first three witnesses who unanimously identify him or her, but then decreases with additional unanimous witness identifications. Different colored lines represent various failure/error rates, with yellow representing zero failure. Credit: Gunn, et al. ©2016 The Royal Society (Phys.org)—Under ancient Jewish law, if a suspect on trial was unanimously found guilty by all judges, then the suspect was acquitted. This reasoning sounds counterintuitive, but the legislators of the time had noticed that unanimous agreement often indicates the presence of systemic error in the judicial process, even if the exact nature of the error is yet to be discovered. They intuitively reasoned that when something seems too good to be true, most likely a mistake was made. In a new paper to be published in The Proceedings of The Royal Society A, a team of researchers, Lachlan J. Gunn, et al., from Australia and France has further investigated this idea, which they call the "paradox of unanimity." "If many independent witnesses unanimously testify to the identity of a suspect of a crime, we assume they cannot all be wrong," coauthor Derek Abbott, a physicist and electronic engineer at The University of Adelaide, Australia, told Phys.org. "Unanimity is often assumed to be reliable. However, it turns out that the probability of a large number of people all agreeing is small, so our confidence in unanimity is ill-founded. This 'paradox of unanimity' shows that often we are far less certain than we think." Unlikely agreement The researchers demonstrated the paradox in the case of a modern-day police line-up, in which witnesses try to identify the suspect out of a line-up of several people. The researchers showed that, as the group of unanimously agreeing witnesses increases, the chance of them being correct decreases until it is no better than a random guess. In police line-ups, the systemic error may be any kind of bias, such as how the line-up is presented to the witnesses or a personal bias held by the witnesses themselves. Importantly, the researchers showed that even a tiny bit of bias can have a very large impact on the results overall. Specifically, they show that when only 1% of the line-ups exhibit a bias toward a particular suspect, the probability that the witnesses are correct begins to decrease after only three unanimous identifications. Counterintuitively, if one of the many witnesses were to identify a different suspect, then the probability that the other witnesses were correct would substantially increase. The mathematical reason for why this happens is found using Bayesian analysis, which can be understood in a simplistic way by looking at a biased coin. If a biased coin is designed to land on heads 55% of the time, then you would be able to tell after recording enough coin tosses that heads comes up more often than tails. The results would not indicate that the laws of probability for a binary system have changed, but that this particular system has failed. In a similar way, getting a large group of unanimous witnesses is so unlikely, according to the laws of probability, that it's more likely that the system is unreliable. The researchers say that this paradox crops up more often than we might think. Large, unanimous agreement does remain a good thing in certain cases, but only when there is zero or near-zero bias. Abbott gives an example in which witnesses must identify an apple in a line-up of bananas—a task that is so easy, it is nearly impossible to get wrong, and therefore large, unanimous agreement becomes much more likely. On the other hand, a criminal line-up is much more complicated than one with an apple among bananas. Experiments with simulated crimes have shown misidentification rates as high as 48% in cases where the witnesses see the perpetrator only briefly as he runs away from a crime scene. In these situations, it would be highly unlikely to find large, unanimous agreement. But in a situation where the witnesses had each been independently held hostage by the perpetrator at gunpoint for a month, the misidentification rate would be much lower than 48%, and so the magnitude of the effect would likely be closer to that of the banana line-up than the one with briefly seen criminals. ... |
Thus again paradoxically, the Biblical Law of Two or Three Witnesses
turns out to be the best quantity of agreement possible in a world where
error in either extreme leads to injustice and false convictions, false identifications,
and false findings of fact.
The Biblical God knows best.