Hacker News Reader

I think we disagree pretty fundamentally on what something "being true" means.

It's possible to come up with an "unnecessarily complex model" for why someone accused of a crime did the crime, but that has completely no bearing on whether the defendant is actually guilty. If the defendant is, in fact, innocent, then the prosecution's model is, in fact, untrue - no matter how well it fits the evidence.

View on HN

> no matter how well it fits the evidence

Are you proposing that an explanation can be true even though there's a different explanation which better fits the evidence?

Or are we talking about cases where both candidate explanations fit the evidence equally, and you have access to some kind of intuition which tells you which of the two are true?

> Are you proposing that an explanation can be true even though there's a different explanation which better fits the evidence?

Such a proposition would be correct; compare the concept (and name!) of "overfitting" in statistics.

I'm talking about a case where the _best explanation_ you have suggests the defendant is guilty, however the _actual truth_ happens to be that they're innocent

Reply on news.ycombinator.com