“He is talking about statistical evidence I think. Same thing Sidney (not Sydney) Powell mentioned on Judge Jeannine a few minutes ago. Not sure if this will be enough.”
I appreciate your comment and think that many people think that way—I suspect many judges and attorneys who are not as familiar with big data and statistical analysis as are tech and science people also think that way But that is a guess.
In the tech world of AI, big data analysis, and machine learning—it is the statistical and mathematical that are central to knowledge and decisions. Paper evidence, photographs, or human testimony aren’t as reliable as data analysis that isn’t affected by human manipulation. It is the statistical evidence that is important, especially when it is based on behaviors such as purchasing, clicking and watching, or voting. Regardless what people say or claim, the statistics are revealing. The statistics in the election tell us something. The attempts to hide counting tells us something, too. Ballots may be faked, people may hide, fear, and lie—but the data and statistics tell a different story. Of course, if the data is manipulated then the statistics become unnatural. That is evidence that something is not right.
I wonder if those persons who claim "there is no evidence" would like to have their bank to never inform them of suspicious activity in their account.
I would love it if Chris Wallace finds his bank account wiped out and told "there was no evidence to suspect fraud".