Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

That's an extremely flawed argument. If you can't explain it to a layman then you don't understand it. If you can't tell whether it's a gap or a fracture -- you can't get a conviction.

"It just looks like it" is not a valid reason.




It is possible that they could have well supported their assessment with evidence and still been wrong.


Interestingly there's an area of psychology called Naturalistic Decision Making which studies how experts make decisions that they can't explain. (Example: a firefighter may be able to pinpoint where a fire is before they enter a house and see it.)


I know, but that is reason for suspicion, not evidence for a conviction.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: