On Lawyers and Agreement

by F.

Sally represents Evil Co., while Jimmy represents Deadbeat McPlaintiff, who claims he was injured by Evil Co.’s product (a yam masher). Both Sally and Jimmy are Bayesian Wannbees. They come into the case with different priors. Sally thinks it .1 likely that Evil Co. knowingly manufactured a defective product. Jimmy thinks it’s .9 likely. They go through discovery and all the facts come out. Each side has access to all the documents of the other, has interviewed the key witnesses, and so on. Now here’s the question: if this was the real world rather than a silly hypothetical, do you think Sally and Jimmy would change their estimates of whether Evil Co. knowingly manufactured defective yam mashers? Even given that discovery has uncovered most (all?) the facts? Should they? My gut is that they won’t change their estimates much, but that they should.