text:
Talk:Prosecutor's fallacy

About Introductions in Every Wikipedia Article
Mathematicians and scientists are desperate to be complete, correct, and precise. That's a good thing. But this is a very bad thing for the introductory sentences of an article. The result is that we get introduction bloat. This problem has grown in Wikipedia over the years. I see this in page after page.

Introductions must be short and simple summaries. I think a rule of thumb would be a max limit of 3 sentences with 10 words for each sentence. I know this idea is intimidating. It has been for me. But now when I try to read other people's articles, I just get confused.

I'm working on a computer science thesis for Bayes Rule. I really want to modify the intro paragraph for this article to make it simple. I would much rather that someone else started swinging the scythe. It is a thankless task that can easily make enemies. But I appeal to all you my colleagues. Think of the poor high school kid seeing this for the first time...or the poor lawyer who can't do math...or the dumb politician who only has 30 seconds...or the poor thesis writer who wants to know the difference between the general idea and the exceptions, boundary conditions, contrarian opinions, idoesyncracies, latest developments, anticipations, implications, bullet lists, subordinate concepts, and everything else that doesn't go in an introduction. I'm thinking that maybe the brevity of a dictionary definition is about right for an introduction.

A really really simple math-free example with provocatively relevant teeth should be right after the introduction. After that, the triple integrals can really fly.

My apologies in advance if I've offended. But please, let us work together. Let's try to remember rhetorical architecture. Wiki will be better for it. --ClickStudent (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC) good point the intro is still to complexCinnamon colbert (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

original article on the so called Prosecutor's fallacy
perhaps someone could more clearly explain this:

Argument from rarity – Consider this case: a lottery winner is accused of cheating, based on the improbability of winning. At the trial, the prosecutor calculates the (very small) probability of winning the lottery without cheating and argues that this is the chance of innocence. The logical flaw: the prosecutor has failed to account for the low prior probability of winning in the first place.

I am usually good at math and probability stuff, but the above has me stumped. Sorry if this makes me sound stupid It says that the prosecutor failed to account for the low prior probability of winning in the first place. But its says that the prosecutor calculates the very small probability of winning. It seems contradictory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.49.244 (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

From the original article on the so called Prosecutor's fallacy:

 Consider for instance the case of Sally Clark, who was accused in 1998 of having killed her first child at 11 weeks of age, then conceived another child and killed it at 8 weeks of age. The prosecution had an expert witness testify that the probability of two children dying from sudden infant death syndrome is about 1 in 73 million. To provide proper context for this number, the probability of a mother killing one child, conceiving another and killing that one too, should have been estimated and compared to the 1 in 73 million figure, but it wasn't. Ms. Clark was convicted in 1999, resulting in a press release by the Royal Statistical Society which pointed out the mistake (http://www.rss.org.uk/archive/reports/sclark.html).

The reason the case against Clark was flawed has nothing to do with the Prosecutor's fallacy, or the misapplication of statistics; though I agree that the way in which statistics were used here was simply wrong.

The case against Clark was flawed because it rests on a false dichotomy: Either Sally Clark's children both died from sudden infant death syndrome or she killed them.

While it's true that SIDS and infanticide are contrary explanations, showing one to be false is insufficient by itself to establish the truth of the alternative.

 * True, but nobody, not even the defense, introduced any other explanations; essentially everyone agreed that those two were the only possible explanations in that case. That should definitely be stated in the article though. AxelBoldt 20:28, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * One issue...SIDS and Infanticide still don't work together in a simple binomial distribution. They're not the only possibilities, despite the lack of any others being brought up. By a simple True/False logic, there is a 100% chance that either one of these possibilities is true. We see Cromwell's rule, that assuming the probability of 1 in a set of observations that could most definitely be expanded upon, we ignore all outside data not covered.  Now, to get to the point, I quote a previous user; "While it's true that SIDS and infanticide are contrary explanations, showing one to be false is insufficient by itself to establish the truth of the alternative." That's true. If the prosecuter argued on this fallacy, his claim of a 1 in 73 million chance of the children dying of SIDS would naturally have to make the incredible assumption that there is a 72,999,999 in 73 million chance that the children were killed by her. That is, of course, if he stuck to the simple binomial idea of one idea being true, then the other must be false. I'm sure we can agree that that claim is absoutely ridiculous by a statistical standpoint. The original entry was correct in assuming that the probability of the murder should have been calculated and compared to this probability. As far as I can tell, the entry is correct as it stands.

Perhaps the assumption that these were the only two possibilities should be introduced into the article, as user AxelBoldt stated. Yes, it's a very likely assumption, and one that would be correct. I would see that as the reason that the statistics were misused; a simple misconception of the false assumption of a binomial distribution. It's said that statistics lie, and they can be warped very easily.

I removed:
 * Of course some consider the Prosecutor's fallacy no fallacy at all, because a logical fallacy, by Wikipedia's own definition, is any way in which an argument fails to be valid or sound. Based as it is upon probability, the Prosecutor's fallacy is not a deductive argument to begin with, and therefore questions of its validity or soundness are themselves variants of the fallacy of stolen concept.

I don't think anyone, not even prosecutors or Bayesians, consider the reasoning behind the Prosecutor's fallacy to be sound. Furthermore, reasoning about probabilities can very well be fallacious, like the Gambler's fallacy for example.

I also cut the remainder of the article significantly, pointing out that some Bayesians may find it justified to use an a priori probability of 1/2, which is what the Prosecutor's fallacy implicitly assumes. AxelBoldt 18:58 Oct 13, 2002 (UTC)

I don't see how the part of the article that says

 * One formulation of Bayes' theorem then states:
 * Odds(G|E) = Odds(G) · P(E|G)/P(E|~G)

is justified. Using Bayes' theorem to find the probablility of guilt gives:

 * Odds(G|E) = Odds(G) · P(E|G) / P(E)

where due to mutual exclusion:

 * P(E) = P(E|~G) · P(~G) + P(E|G) · P(G)

The article's formula holds only when you make the additional, unstated assumption that P(G) is small enough to make P(E|~G) a good approximation for P(E).

 * That's not incorrect; the formula Odds(G|E) = Odds(G) * P(E|G)/P(E|~G) is correct, without any unstated assumptions. To prove the formula, divide Pr(G|E)=Pr(E|G)*Pr(G)/Pr(E) by Pr(~G|E)=Pr(E|~G)*Pr(~G)/Pr(E). AxelBoldt 20:28, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * The article itself is biased and has a prosecurtor's fallacy in it. In the section labeled "Defense attorney's fallacy" a Wikipedia contributing editor (or several) indicate that the defense attorneys for OJ Simpson twisted the truth. However, the editors choose to ignore the times when the prosecutor's of the case twisted the truth/facts/statistics   --172.58.200.37 (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Does this happen everywhere int the World or limited to in U.S.? -- Taku

No, it has occurred in cases in the UK -- Tony Vignaux 09:00 18 May 2003 (UTC)

---

I'm not sure that the Clark example illustrates the Prosecutor's Fallacy very well, because I think there's another closely related fallacy. I think I understand the Bayesian analysis, but I think there's a perhaps more obvious error than not computing the prior Odds(G): the calculation of Odds(G|E) doesn't take into account that any family that has 2 children who die of SIDS could find themselves in the same situation as Clark, and there are probably millions of such families.

Suppose 50% of people are guilty and we believe that the probability of two children in the same household dying of SIDS are 1 in 73 million. We still shouldn't be convinced that Clark is guilty. Rather, if there are say 10 million households with two children, and any time two children die there's a police inquiry because it's suspicious when 2 children in the same household die, then the odds of an unfortunate 2-time SIDS mother coming before the court is approximately 1/7.

BTW, the fallacy of the other example given in this article seems more related to the number of people tested than to failing to take into account the a priori probability.

Here's a an example of not taking into account the a priori prob, that has no problem with the number of people tested: suppose I believe that I have magical abilities that allow me to win the lottery, even though the odds of winning with random numbers are 1 in 1 billion. I play and win the lottery. Are you convinced I have magical abilities? I'd say it's certainly worth checking out, but anyone's reasonable estimate of the a priori odds that I have magical powers is very very low. So, it's more likely that I was simply very lucky than that I have magical powers. Note that this example doesn't require any argument about how many other people declare that they have magical powers and play the lottery -- I could be the only one, and my claim would still be dubious.

What are people's thoughts on my reasoning here? If I'm sound, does anyone know which is the prosecutor's fallacy: failing to account for the a priori probability, or failing to account for the number of tests done?

Zashaw 05:21 24 May 2003 (UTC)

 * I don't exactly follow your alternative analysis (and I am sure there aren't "millions of families" with 2 SIDS deaths). Prosecutor's fallacy, to put it succinctly, is the assumption that tiny Pr(~G|E) yields similarly tiny Pr(~G). I think there are various possible reasons that can cause a person to commit this fallacy. AxelBoldt 20:28, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

''In another scenario, assume a rape has been committed, and all the males of the town are rounded up for DNA testing. Finally one man whose DNA matches is arrested. At the trial, it is testified that the probability of finding a DNA match is only 1 in 10,000. This does not mean that the suspect is innocent with the tiny probability of 1 in 10,000. If for instance 20,000 men were tested, then we would expect to find two matches, and the suspect is innocent with probability at least 1 in 2.''

This was confusing. If all the men in the town have been tested, and there's only 1 match, then that's your guy. So I replaced the above with a version that didn't say all the men had been tested. Does it look OK? Evercat 13:30 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate that people change text that they simply don't understand. The statement is that 1 in 10,000 people will match a given DNA sample.  Given 20,000 people, 2 are likely to match -- they can't both be guilty.  That means that DNA testing is not 100% accurate, thus if there's only one match, that does not prove that it's your guy.

 * I found the resulting paragraph a bit confusing, because at first it wasn't stated who was tested, other than the indicted man. So, I changed it to just say that 20,000 men were tested, & didn't say how this related to the size of the town.  BTW, though, the example is valid even if everyone in the town is tested, since it's not clear that the rapist necessarily lived in that town -- he could easily have come from a neighboring town.
 * I also didn't see how the probability 1 in 2 was arrived at, at the end of the pragraph, so I did the calculation I think more accurately.
 * Zashaw 22:58 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

spurious argument
I removed the following paragraph from this article: ''Another instance of the prosecutor's fallacy is sometimes encountered when discussing the origins of life: the probability of life arising at random out of the physical laws is estimated to be tiny, and this is presented as evidence for a creator, without regard for the possibility that the probability of such a creator could be even tinier. '' There is absolutely no way to establish the probability of there being a creator. One person might say the probability is zero. Another might say that it's 1. A few may put it somewhere in between. But the question isn't really one of probability at all. :-Rholton 02:40, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * That's not a valid reason to remove the paragraph. The described argument takes the probability of there being a creator as the inverse of the probability of life arising at random out of physical laws.  Within that framework, the argument is an example of the prosecutor's fallacy.  Whether that inverse relationship really holds or whether its actually possible to calculate the probability of life arising at random out of physical laws is beside the point. 68.6.73.60 11:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Strange statement
This seems to be incorrect, unless I'm missing something:
 * When the photographic evidence is combined with the match, the two together point strongly towards guilt, since (assuming the chance of being in the photograph and having the match are independent) the chance that the accused is innocent falls to about 0.01%.

It seems that the probability of innocence only falls to 89.1%, since 0.9 x 0.99 = 0.891. Even with the untenable independence assumption (for example, someone may be framing them by setting up several pieces of evidence), it would take quite a bit more evidence to show anything beyond reasonable doubt. Deco 07:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * You are indeed missing something and falling into the defendant's fallacy. The argument goes that the prior probability that the man is innocent is 9,999,999/10,000,000.  While the likelihood of having the match and being in the video may be 1 if guilty, the likelihood of the match if innocent is 1/1,000,000, and the likelihood of being in the video if innocent is 1/100,000,  so (assuming independence since this is mathematics, not real life) the likelihood of both happening if innocent is 1/100,000,000,000.  That gives a posterior probability of being innocent of  9,999,999/100,009,999,999 which is 0.000099989991... or about 0.01%. --Henrygb 03:11, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks, I get it now - I forgot we were dealing here with conditional probabilities, not just prior probabilities. This result fits with common sense, too — we often consider 2 pieces of strong evidence conclusive. Deco 03:30, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Who originated the terms "prosecutor's fallacy" and "defense fallacy." Shouldn't there be a reference to the origin of these terms?

I'm sick and tired of the phrase "a concrete example".

--- Interesting case? Sounds more like tragic to me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.234.140 (talk) 09:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Right answer to the wrong question
This is rather minor, doesn't take anything away from the article, but in the interests of accuracy...

At the top, the article mentions a 1-in-a-million chance in a community with 10 million people, saying that on average 10 people will match. Then later it says that this means that if someone matches it only means a 1/10 chance of guilt. However this is not the case - if we know someone matches it changes the expected number of people that will match. There is one person (the defendant) who we know matches, and there are 9,999,999 people who each also have a 1-in-a-million chance of matching, fro which we can expect about 10 people to match. This gives the defendant a 1/11 chance of guilt. Of course this figure changes again if numerous tests were performed and only the defendant matched - it's 1 in (1 + one millionth of the untested population).

Though I don't want to add this straight into the article, I want to get some confirmation I'm not completely wrong in my calculations here... most notably that I'm not falling on the wrong side of the trap "Expected number given this particular person matches" vs "Expected number given at least one person matches" - I think I have it right though. Phlip 06:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

A surprising example
A friend of mine sent me this example. It may deserve a paragraph here or in the Bayes theorem article. Bill Jefferys 21:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Possibly erroneous statement
"When the photographic evidence is combined with the match, the two together point strongly towards guilt, since (assuming the chance of being in the photograph and having the match are independent) the chance that the accused is innocent falls to about 0.01%. This low probability of innocence is not proof of guilt." - the derivation of 0.01% is unclear. This could be wrong.
 * I said the same thing. See above. Perhaps this should be clarified in the article. Deco 18:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Another possibly erroneous statement
''In legal terms, the prosecutor is operating in terms of a presumption of guilt, something which is contrary to the normal presumption of innocence where a person is assumed to be innocent unless found guilty. A more reasonable value for the prior odds of guilt might be a value estimated from the overall frequency of the given crime in the general population.''

In the UK at least, procecutors are oblidged to presume guilt, reguardless of evidence to the contrary.

Defendants are oblidged to presume innocence, reguardless of evidence to the contrary (unless their client pleads guilty).

jurors are oblidged to initially presume innocence, and change their mind according to the cases presented, but only return a guilty verdict if they are sure 'beyond reasonable doubt' of the defendant's guilt.

And, finally, expert witnessess are oblidged to initially presume nothing -- neither innocence nor guilt -- and approach the situation unbiasedly.

So, prosecutors assuming guilt is not contrary to the normal presumption of innocence ;)

I took it out. Figured the edit needed explainin --DakAD 15:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Can you provide evidence to support your statement that UK Prosecutors are required to presume guilt please? ---*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 02:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

 * This is profoundly wrong, DakAD might like to read the Crown Prosecution Service's "Statement of Ethical Principles" to be found at - http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/statment_of_ethical_principles_for_the_public_prosecutor/#a04 in particular Section 4 which states both that prosecutors "have a duty to the court in question to act with independence in the interest of justice" and "remain impartial and objective". 82.6.156.126 (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

... and later died from alcohol abuse
Where does the fact that Sally Clark died of alcohol abuse come from? Not from the article linked... 193.166.223.5 (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It also seems completely irrelevant to the subject of the article. 192.52.61.205 (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Could it be used to show the implications of using the prosecutors fallacy, by showing how much it can damage an innocent person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.196.222 (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I have added a citation regarding the cause of death of Sally Clark. I do not see how the effect on her of a wrongful conviction for killing her two babies can in any way be irrelevant to the main subject. The case arose largely because a forensic pathologist behaved incompetently to the level of 'serious professional misconduct' and withheld exculpatory evidence; he then compounded this by revisiting his analysis of the cause of death of the first child and decided that it wasn't by natural causes but by smothering. Meadow's misuse of statistics, and failure to make clear to the court that his evidence was outside his field of expertise, contributed greatly to her wrongful conviction. Meadow later tried to minimise the effect of his erroneous and inexpert use of statistics; unfortunately significant harm had been done to a number of innocent defendants - see his page on Wiki. In Sally Clark's case he contributed to the destruction of her life. Limhey (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Defendant's fallacy
This whole section is completely fallacious, since a lot of its contents is falsely based on the gambler's fallacy. The section goes on a very long and incomprehensible description of why should the defendant be almost definitely guilty and I had to read it three times to understand it, although my knowledge of the probability theory goes quite far, since I studied mathematics and I play poker for a living. So, as far as I have understood, the test is 99.9999% correct, but there is only one person out of 10 million who is actually guilty. So, in fact, the expected value of guilty people is 1*99.9999%, or almost one person and the expected value of false positives is 99,999,999*0.0001%, or about 10 and, according to the Bayes' theorem, defendant's reasoning is actually correct, he just used a shortcut to get there.

The section goes on to add some video, where (IANAL, I just use common sense) using it to show guilt is mathematically nonsensical. Also, it assumes a probability of 0.1% of the two events having happened (where, also, assuming their mutual independence changes the odds by a very large degree), which is utterly false, as it revolves around the same idea that a coin having come tails 10 times in a row is now only 2-10 to come tails on the next throw. I suggest this section to be removed or at least completely rewritten, as it is full of false information that contradicts the rest of this article. 93.136.119.103 (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I don't see that. The article says "the likelihood of both happening if innocent is 1/100,000,000,000" so the combination of tests does not lead to your 99.9999% accuracy but 99.999999999%, and so the combination of tests leads to a very much smaller expected false positve number. --Rumping (talk) 08:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, how is this relevant to the defendant's fallacy? And one other thing to consider regarding the so-called gambler's fallacy: it is only a fallacy if one assumes a frequentist perspective or if one endorses a tautology. In order to establish conditional independence, which is necessary to butress a claim of fallaciousness, one must observe numerous trials. But suppose a person only views a few trials, and all come out a certain way (say heads, for e.g.)a reasonable person might very well believe the next outcome would not be random: a bayesian would think the next outcome should be a heads because his prior for heads is quite high. The point is that one cannot establish conditional independence without the endorsing the frequentist paradigm, and without conditional independece, it is by defenition NOT improper to use the previous outcome to modify the current posterior probability estimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.125.205.72 (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Mathematical analysis thought experiment is fallacious
The thought experiment involving balls in a bowl is fallacious (ironic since it supposed to be exposing a fallacy). Drawing a white ball actually does give you good reason to believe the ball is wood, since it is (Bayesian) evidence that there are not a large majority of red (plastic) balls in the bowl. Anyone who wants to revert this edit, please provide source/reference for this thought experiment, which is currently un-attributed. Joncolvin (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Defense attorney's fallacy
This section seems to be a re-worked Defendant's fallacy. I should point out I'm not familiar with this fallacy. However, this appears to me to be a very different argument. The Defendant's fallacy (seen above in this talk page) seems to address the problem of dismissing two separate items of evidence as weak, when they can be combined and as such are quite strong. The article now seems to suggest that by conducting a test of 10 million people with a probability of a positive of 1 in a million given innocense, it is false to assume that a positive result is only indicative of a 10% chance of guilt. Leaving aside the question of whether the 10 million people are sure to contain the guilty party (a question raised above), it seems to me that this evidence alone does only give approximately a 1 in 10 (or 11) chance of guilt. The earlier article coupled a similar test with a further test to obtain an increased probability. This chapter seems an example of the fallacy cause by multiple testing, mentioned above. While a probability of 1 in 10 (or 11) may actually be significant with other evidence, as the citation seems to suggest, it hardly seems a fallacy to produce this sort of probability without further supporting evidence.

Probability is an area I have some knowledge in, but I'm in no way specialized in this area. I don't assume that I haven't missed something, and so I'd rather someone corrected me here than I mistakenly corrected the article. Timbo76 (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

 * I have added a sentence to indicate how to interpret the probability that a group of suspects might not include the guilty person. —DIV (1.144.109.102 (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC))
 * I agree: How do they get the 90% chance of guilt? The prosecutor argued what proportion to reach the 90%? The rate of the gene in the population of the town? Because it would require furher elaboration, somethong like: as only 10% of the population could have the gene, 90% of the population is innocent, 10% could be guilty. That doesn´t add to 90%. Sbriones (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The Sally Clark case
The article says the one of two possibilities must be true: Both died from SIDS or Both were murdered. What about the probability of one dying from SIDS and one murdered, or deaths from other causes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.196.222 (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * These issues are tackled in: Hill, R. (2004). Multiple sudden infant deaths – coincidence or beyond coincidence? Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 18, 320-326. 114.72.190.236 (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, this is a problem with the article. It shouldn't say there are only two possibilities, since obviously there is a third possibility: one child dies of SIDS and the other is murdered. Perhaps it should be reworded, such as "If we consider the following two possibilities..." 206.116.243.76 (talk) 02:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's also (and ironically) a problem with the RSS press release, which read: "Two deaths by SIDS or two murders are each quite unlikely, but one has apparently happened in this case." However, there is a plausible argument (which doesn't appear to be given explicitly by Hill) why the one-of-each hypothesis can be neglected. If a single death is much more likely to be SIDS than murder (Hill gives this ratio as 17:1, and we would see many more murder suspects if it were not so), then SIDS-SIDS is more likely than SIDS-murder (by the same ratio) even if double SIDS deaths are uncorrelated (and a positive correlation would enhance the ratio; a negative correlation would be needed to reverse it -- or other relevant information about a given case, of course). I've neglected to consider the factor of 2 associated with SIDS-murder vs. murder-SIDS, but 2 is much less than 17. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.19.73 (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The preceding paragraph is based on the assumption that the probability of murder (or SIDS) is independent of prior SIDS (or murder), which would also have to be tested. But it seems likely that the ordering is indeed as given, i.e. that (in the absence of other evidence) double-SIDS is more likely than one-of-each. (Of course, if other evidence indicates that murder is more likely than SIDS in one of the two deaths, then it may well be that the entire ordering is reversed: SIDS becomes less likely than murder in the other death too, and hence double-SIDS becomes the least likely explanation.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.19.73 (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The article says that even if the one in 73 million statistic was correct, then it still might be unlikely due to the other possibilities all having low base rates. This is incorrect. It already said that the historical rate for two cases of SIDS is much higher than that. The probability of that being a coincidence is far too small to consider. Clearly, the probability of two apparent SIDS cases is much higher than one in 73 million, so one of the alternatives must have a high base rate. — DanielLC 18:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Lede
The wording of a lede should not be as difficult to follow for the ordinary reader as this; it's far too technical. I very much doubt anyone without real knowledge of statistics will be enlightened by it, many will be put off reading further. The detailed knowledge that Melcombe obviously has should be used to simplify the lede, even if that makes it less complete. The full technical explainations should be moved to the main body of the article, which is the proper place to go into them. Overagainst (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

 * The lede is unintelligible and I have an expertise is this area.CSDarrow (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Clarity in writing
I have a few college degrees and I'm still not sure I understand what the prosecutor's fallacy is, even after reading this article. It seems like a common problem with logic-related articles on Wikipedia.

Can the Editors working on this piece pretend that the average reader a) knows nothing about the philosophical field of logic, b) knows little about the processes of law and statistics and c) can not decipher these cryptic equations? The average person who comes across this article (probably because another article links to it) does not have a background in logic or philosophy. Do not write for those who already knows what a prosecutor's fallacy is, write for those who don't even know what a "fallacy" is. That's the best contribution you could make. Liz  Read! Talk! 14:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Prosecutor's fallacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20030528061717/http://www.colchsfc.ac.uk:80/maths/dna/discuss.htm to http://www.colchsfc.ac.uk/maths/dna/discuss.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible typo in the "Defense attorney's fallacy" section
There appears to be a typo in the intro of this section. It lists a change from 10% to 10%, but that's the same number both times. I am not familiar enough with the subject to know what the correct wording should be. Here is the sentence I am talking about:

"If, for example, the police came up with a list of 10 suspects, all of whom had access to the crime scene, then it would be very illogical indeed to suggest that a test that offers a one-in-a-million chance of a match would change the defendant's prior probability from 1 in 10 or 10 percent to 1 in 10 or 10 percent."

173.161.135.17 (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Clarity issues
Great job, you guys managed to make a simple fallacy almost completely incomprehensible to anyone who isn't an expert in logic or law. BinkeBint (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Selective merge to base rate fallacy
Consider this article (prosecutor's fallacy or PF) and that about base rate fallacy (BRF). I do not think there is much question that PF is synonymous, or a subset of, the BRF. Hence it would make sense to merge the two; the only question is how.

As of now, the BRF article is much clearer than the PF one (in particular, the lead of PF is atrocious). I would suggest to redirect PF to BRF and to incorporate the following modifications in BRF:
 * 1) add one sentence to the lead such as It is also called the prosecutor’s fallacy when applied to the results of statistical tests, such as DNA tests, in the context of a court trial.
 * 2) move the blood type example (currently in the lead of PF) into a fourth example at BRF
 * 3) create a new section "examples in law" and move there (1) the OJ Simpson defense argument (trimmed down a bit), (2) the Sally Clark case (trimmed down a lot), (3) the multiple-testing DNA-database-search.

The rest of the PF is more or less a less clear duplicate of parts of the BRF article.

Any objections? Tigraan Click here for my talk page ("private" contact) 16:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

 * @Tigraan Given that no one has clarified the wording on this article for more than a year, according to the maintenance tag... sure seems like you might as well go ahead and do this. -- asilvering (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Two months without comments, I sure hope nobody objects now... Tigraan Click here for my talk page ("private" contact) 08:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Prosecutor's fallacy


text:
Lekotek

Lekotek is an international program to lend Assistive Technology, toys and expertise to disabled children. The first lekotek opened in 1963 in Stockholm, Sweden. From there the concept spread to other Scandinavian countries, Europe and the rest of the world. For example, there are over 50 lekoteks in the United States. The first American lekotek opened in Evanston, Illinois in 1980. The first US lekoteks were founded by Sally DeVencentis and Sharon Draznin.

The name is a mix of the Swedish root word “lek,” meaning toy or play, and the Greek suffix “tek” that connotes library.

Underlying concept
The underlying concept is that early intervention through play with adapted toys and technology can teach disabled children to deal with the "normal" world. Some of theoretical basis for the lekotek movement comes from work done by a British psychologist, Elizabeth Newson. Her book "Toys and Playthings, " (ISBN 0-394-42830-7) discusses the effect of play on child development.

Launch of AblePlay
In November 2005, the National Lekotek Center launched their new AblePlay website at www.AblePlay.org providing access to authoritative ratings and detailed reviews from National Lekotek professionals on loads of toys and other play products. Lekotek's unique evaluation process yields product information categorized by disability category to further simplify the toy-buying experience. Parents and professionals can benefit from insightful play ideas for each toy, as well as from the online forums to allow them to share experiences and provide personal advice to each other. Launching AblePlay was an important step in realizing Lekotek's goal to be the central source of information and support services involving toys and play for kids with special needs. National Lekotek is a division of Anixter Center which provides services to more than 5,000 adults and children with disabilities through 70 programs at 35 locations annually.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Lekotek


text:
Charlotte Gainsbourg

Charlotte Lucy Gainsbourg (born 21 July 1971) is a British-French actress and singer. She is the daughter of English actress and singer Jane Birkin and French singer Serge Gainsbourg. After making her musical debut with her father on the song "Lemon Incest" at the age of 12, she released an album with her father at the age of 15. More than 20 years passed before Gainsbourg released albums as an adult (5:55, IRM, Stage Whisper and Rest) to commercial and critical success. She has acted in many films, including collaborations with Lars von Trier, and received two César Awards and Cannes Film Festival's Best Actress Award 2009 for the movie Antichrist, among many nominations.

Background
Gainsbourg was born on 21 July 1971 in the Marylebone area of Central London to English actress and singer Jane Birkin and French musician Serge Gainsbourg. Gainsbourg was born at the height of her parents' fame; they had made headlines three years earlier with the sexually explicit song "Je t'aime... moi non plus" and by that point had become notorious for their turbulent relationship and multiple artistic collaborations. As a result, her childhood was well publicised.

At birth, she received the surname of Gainsbourg, her father's stage name, but at the age of 18 she changed her surname to Ginsburg, her father's legal surname. She has continued to use the Gainsbourg name professionally.

Her maternal grandmother was actress Judy Campbell, and her uncle is screenwriter Andrew Birkin, who directed her in The Cement Garden. She is a cousin of theatre and opera director Sophie Hunter. Gainsbourg's father was Jewish, whereas her mother is from a Protestant background. Gainsbourg attended École Active Bilingue Jeannine Manuel in Paris and Collège Alpin International Beau Soleil in Switzerland. French is Gainsbourg's first language, but she is also fluent in English.

Gainsbourg was raised in Paris alongside her half-sister, Kate Barry, from her mother's marriage to composer John Barry. Kate Barry died in 2013 after falling out of a window. According to Birkin, both parents were somewhat neglectful, often spending their nights going out to parties and drinking. She has a young brother, Lucien "Lulu" Gainsbourg, born in 1986 from her father's relationship with Bambou. On her father's side she also had two older siblings born from his second marriage to Françoise-Antoinette "Béatrice" Pancrazzi.

By 1980, her parents' relationship had dissolved and her mother left her father for the director Jacques Doillon. Her half-sister, Lou Doillon, was born in 1982 as a result of the union. Gainsbourg would go on to work with her stepfather in the film The Temptation of Isabelle in 1985 and later in Amoureuse in 1992, which also starred her future partner Yvan Attal.

In 1987, she was the target of a bungled kidnapping.

After her parents separated, Gainsbourg's father descended into alcoholism, eventually dying of a heart attack in 1991. Gainsbourg remained devoted to preserving his legacy and preserved his home, saying she hoped to eventually turn it into a museum. Maison Gainsbourg opened in 2023. She eventually abandoned the project and decided to maintain the house as a private residence instead.

Acting
Gainsbourg grew up on film sets, as both of her parents were involved in the film industry. She stated that her mother had pushed her into acting, believing that she wanted to be an actress and encouraging her to make her motion picture debut playing Catherine Deneuve's daughter in the film Paroles et Musique (1984).

In 1986, Gainsbourg won a César Award for "Most Promising Actress" for An Impudent Girl. That same year Gainsbourg appeared in the film Charlotte for Ever about a man who develops incestuous desires for his teenage daughter after his wife dies. Written and directed by Gainsbourg's father Serge Gainsbourg, who also took the role of Gainsbourg's father on screen, the film heightened the controversy that had resulted from Gainsbourg's debut single Lemon Incest, which had similar themes and also was created and sung with her father Serge causing press speculation that the material was autobiographical.

In 1988, she appeared together with her mother in a set of films Kung Fu Master and the documentary drama Jane B. by Agnes V., both directed by Agnès Varda. In 1993, Gainsbourg made her English-speaking debut in The Cement Garden, written and directed by her uncle, Andrew Birkin. Her stage debut was in 1994, in David Mamet's Oleanna at the Théâtre de la Gaîté-Montparnasse. In 1996, Gainsbourg starred as the title character in Jane Eyre, a film adaption of Charlotte Brontë's 1847 novel. In 2000, she won the César Award for "Best Supporting Actress" for the film La Bûche.

In 2003, Gainsbourg starred in 21 Grams, with Naomi Watts, Sean Penn and Benicio del Toro. In 2006, Gainsbourg appeared alongside Gael García Bernal in Michel Gondry's The Science of Sleep. In 2007, she appeared as Claire in the Todd Haynes-directed Bob Dylan biographical film I'm Not There, also contributing a cover version of the Dylan song "Just Like a Woman" to the film soundtrack. In 2009, she won the award for Best Actress at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival for the film Antichrist. Gainsbourg starred in the French/Australian production The Tree, released in 2010, and in Lars von Trier's science fiction disaster film Melancholia. She was on the jury for the 62nd Berlin International Film Festival in February 2012. In May 2012, Confession of a Child of the Century premiered, in which she starred alongside the British musician Pete Doherty.

Gainsbourg worked with von Trier once again on his 2013 film Nymphomaniac, in which she played the title role. The 5½-hour film depicts the life of a sex addict from youth to middle age. Regarding her reservations about the part, Gainsbourg commented, "The sex scenes weren't so hard. For me, it was all the masochistic scenes. Those were embarrassing and, yes, a little humiliating."

In 2014, she starred in Three Hearts and Éric Toledano and Olivier Nakache's film Samba, for which she was nominated for a Lumières Award for Best Actress. She then played Dr. Catherine Marceaux in Independence Day: Resurgence, sequel of the 1996 film Independence Day. In 2017, she starred alongside Michael Fassbender and Rebecca Ferguson in the crime thriller film The Snowman. In 2020, she had a cameo role playing herself in the first episode of the fourth season of Call My Agent!

Music

Gainsbourg made her musical debut on the controversial song "Lemon Incest" in 1984. Sung by Gainsbourg and her father Serge, the lyrics implied a pedophiliac relationship between a father and daughter and led people to believe that the material was autobiographical. Gainsbourg, who was 13 at the time of the song's release, later stated that she had just begun boarding school and was therefore unaware of the controversy regarding the song until she was much older.

In 1986, she released her debut album Charlotte for Ever, which was produced by her father. In 2000, Gainsbourg was featured on the Madonna album Music on the track "What It Feels Like for a Girl". The lengthy spoken introduction by Gainsbourg is taken from the film The Cement Garden, which inspired the title of the song. The track was further remixed for a single version in 2001, with Gainsbourg's The Cement Garden speech repeated during the song.

In 2000, Gainsbourg was featured on the Soundwalk Collective with Patti Smith album Peradam on the track "The Four Cardinal Times".

In 2004, she sang a duet with French pop star Étienne Daho on his single "If". In 2006, Gainsbourg released her second album 5:55 to critical acclaim and commercial success, reaching the top spot on the French charts and achieving platinum status in that country. In the UK, the album was moderately successful, reaching No. 78. (The single "The Songs That We Sing" only achieved No. 129.) Gainsbourg attributed the twenty-year break between her debut album and 5:55 to her father's death and her reluctance to explore a musical career without him.

In late 2009, Gainsbourg released her third studio album, IRM, which was produced by Beck. One of the influential factors in the album's creative process was her time spent filming Antichrist. Gainsbourg's head injury in 2007 influenced the title of the album "IRM", an abbreviation for the French translation of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). During her brain scan, she began to think about music. "When I was inside that machine," she said, "it was an escape to think about music. It's rhythm. It was very chaotic."

Her song "Heaven Can Wait" was chosen as the Starbucks iTunes Pick of the Week on 2 March 2010. Her song "Trick Pony" appeared at the beginning of the Grey's Anatomy episode "Perfect Little Accident" (Season 6, Episode 16/airdate: 25 February 2010), is featured on the FIFA 11 soundtrack and was used in the 2012 Teleflora Super Bowl advertisement featuring supermodel Adriana Lima.

In 2011, Gainsbourg released the double album Stage Whisper, a collection of unreleased songs from IRM and live tracks. In 2013, Gainsbourg released a cover version of the song "Hey Joe", recorded with Beck, for the soundtrack of the film Nymphomaniac, in which she was the lead actress. Her music influenced artists such as Tove Lo, who cited the simplicity and quirky lyrical content of Charlotte's IRM as the main inspiration behind her career in music and said that it "opened a new world" for her as regards sound, and she performed a bilingual cover of "The Maiden's Prayer" in French and English as the opening tune for the Anglo-French crime thriller television serial The Tunnel.

Since 2014, Gainsbourg has been supporting the Hear the World Foundation as ambassador. In her role she advocates for equal opportunities and a better quality of life for people with hearing loss. She was featured in the Hear the World Calendar 2014, the proceeds of which were to benefit the foundation's projects.

Gainsbourg worked for four years, mainly in New York, with producer Sebastian Akchoté (known as SebastiAn) on her fifth studio album, titled Rest. Rest is a portrayal of her feelings after her father Serge Gainsbourg and her half-sister Kate Barry's death, with the theme of alcohol addiction. About the album, she said "The album took a different direction. I wanted to express [my grief] not only with sadness but with anger." The lyrics are in English and French. In September 2017, music videos for the singles "Rest" and "Deadly Valentine" were released, both are directed by Gainsbourg herself. The music videos feature her children. The album was released on 17 November 2017. A companion EP for Rest was released the following year, titled Take 2. Gainsbourg additionally featured on Akchoté's second studio album Thirst in November 2019.

Throughout late November 2020, Gainsbourg posted images to social media of her in the recording studio with Irish-Scottish music producer Salvador Navarrete, known better by his stage name Sega Bodega. Navarrete described the sessions as "sounding beautiful". It was unveiled in September 2021 that Gainsbourg would appear on Navarrete's second studio album, Romeo, which was released on 12 November 2021. It is expected that more music between the two will be released.

Personal life
Gainsbourg's longtime partner is French-Israeli actor/director Yvan Attal whom she met on the set of the 1991 film Aux yeux du monde. Gainsbourg and Attal are not married, and Gainsbourg has attributed her reluctance to her parents never marrying. Attal publicly proposed to Gainsbourg on 19 June 2013, during an awards ceremony when he received the French National Order of Merit. In April 2014, Attal confirmed that they were still unmarried, with no plans to marry. Together they have three children: a son, Ben (b. 1997), and daughters Alice (b. 2002) and Jo (b. 2011). Gainsbourg identifies as Jewish and celebrates Jewish holidays with her partner's family.

Gainsbourg was born in London, but she spent most of her life in Paris until the death of her sister Kate Barry. In 2013, she and her family relocated to New York City. They returned to Paris in 2020. She is proud of both her nationalities.

On 5 September 2007, Gainsbourg underwent surgery for a cerebral hemorrhage. She had been experiencing headaches since a waterskiing accident in the United States several weeks earlier.

Awards and nominations

 * Officer of the Order of Arts and Letters (2016)

title: Charlotte Gainsbourg


text:
Make Yourself

Make Yourself is the third studio album by American rock band Incubus. It was released on October 26, 1999, through Epic Records and Immortal Records. The album received double platinum certification by the RIAA and produced three charting singles—"Pardon Me", "Stellar", and "Drive"—all of which reached the top three of the Billboard Alternative Songs chart, with the latter topping the chart and also becoming the band's sole top ten hit to date on the  Billboard Hot 100, where it peaked at number nine.

The album is the first to be recorded with new turntablist Chris Kilmore, who replaced DJ Lyfe.

Style and genres
Make Yourself has been described as an alternative metal, alternative rock, nu metal,  and funk rock album. Slant Magazine claimed in 2001 that Incubus "blur the perceptions between metal and alt-rock" on the album.

Writing and recording
The songs for the album were written following an exhausting tour for their full length major label debut S.C.I.E.N.C.E.. Touring for S.C.I.E.N.C.E. began in 1997 and covered the entirety of 1998, with the band playing over 300 shows that year alone. Vocalist Brandon Boyd reflected in a 2020 Kerrang! article, "when we got home, we started coming up with ideas and gave ourselves eight weeks to write the record and in those eight weeks, all the songs that appear on the album came out." In a 1999 interview, Boyd mentioned that "Nowhere Fast" originated through improvisational live jams during the S.C.I.E.N.C.E. tour, remarking "we've been exploring drum-'n'-bass here and there on stage, playing little improvisational ditties in between real songs from the records. José would start playing a drum-'n'-bass he'd made up, I'd play my didgeridoo to it, and [it] started forming out of live things like that." For Make Yourself, turntablist Chris Kilmore intended to use a scratch record of sounds he had recorded over the years. However, it took two and a half weeks for Kilmore to get this record made, which led to him not being present for the early portions of the writing process.

While the album has since been considered to have a more accessible sound than their previous works, Boyd claimed in 2020 that "we didn’t actually say out loud to each other that we needed to write a more commercial record; we just wrote in the same way we knew how to write and Make Yourself is what came out." However, guitarist Mike Einziger did note in 2020 that the band wanted to make the album more mature and less "zany" than earlier works such as S.C.I.E.N.C.E.. In a 1999 interview from when the album was being written, he also said that it was going to have more "ambiance" and be more focused than S.C.I.E.N.C.E.. In 2020, he stated there was a "genuine creative desire to step up our artistry. We really wanted to become great songwriters [and] graduate from the zany music we spent our high school years writing." Einziger added that, "I really wanted Brandon to be more vulnerable. We had conversations about that; some of them were uncomfortable. I felt like a lot of the music we’d written up until that point was personal but some of it was almost cartoonish, which is awesome and something that came very naturally to us, but I felt like we could really connect with people and write music that could make more of an emotional connection."

Tensions arose between band members during the making of the album, which led to them briefly entering group therapy. Boyd reflected on the tension in a 2001 interview with Spin, saying that "when we're making music together, it's like five men making love — in a very platonic sense. It's very erotic because your spirits are intermingling, you're becoming one. It's also why it can get so heated. You're tapping into this electricity that's very primal."

Regarding his experience writing the album, Boyd remembered in 2020, "when we were touring S.C.I.E.N.C.E, I’d been with my girlfriend for quite a long time, and then it came to light that she’d been having an affair while I was gone, so I was dealing with a pretty high degree of heartbreak when I went into Make Yourself. The writing process ended up becoming like an open poetic therapy session for me. There was a little bit of anger, definitely heartbreak but also a sense of hope around finding a new love. From my point of view, the songs very clearly describe the arc of that experience." In a 2000 interview, Boyd said that when "Pardon Me" was written, he was also dealing with the deaths of a family member and a friend, in addition to these relationship troubles. He said that he was "being bombarded by life" at the time, and that this inspired the song's lyrical themes. The lyrics to "Stellar" were inspired by Boyd's new girlfriend Jo, who he met during the making of the album. She would later appear in the song's music video, with Boyd saying in 2020, "it was a very different kind of love than the love I experienced as a teenager. It felt much more expansive, hence the 'meet me in outer space' imagery." Boyd wrote the melodies to the song after Einziger showed him the main guitar part for it.

Regarding the hit single "Drive", Boyd said "a lot of those topics are still things I wrestle with. The song is about reckoning with fear and uncertainty and I’m still in a kind-of active dance with that, as I probably will be my entire life", adding that "just because you write something down, put a melody to it and a bunch of people like it doesn’t mean it was a thought that was complete – it’s not as if I became enlightened around the idea of not letting fear dictate the course of my life." Einziger said, "I could never have predicted [Drive] was going to be a smash-hit song, but I knew that it felt special to us. It felt like an honest encapsulation of being vulnerable and I felt like people would connect with it." Before recording the final version that appears on the album, the band worked on a demo version of the song at their homes which closely resembled the final version, with Einziger saying, "I remember [Brandon] singing the lyrics to me in the car as they appear on the album. The version we made before we recorded it properly was really the same."

When the album was being recorded at NRG in North Hollywood, Chris Kilmore had his own DJ setup in the hallway. He adds, "there were a bunch of other bands there. 311 was there a lot of the time, and Jurassic 5 was there a lot of the time. And because I had that turntable setup in the hallway, I was always out there practicing and trying stuff." The day the instrumental song "Battlestar Scralatchtica" was recorded, Brandon Boyd was missing because he had a dentist appointment. Kilmore states, "we weren’t going to waste a day. So we wrote a cool little track. I was out in the hallway scratching, and Nu-Mark and Cut Chemist walked by. I was like, 'Hey. Do you guys want to scratch on this track we just did?'. We went in, laid it down, and that’s how 'Battlestar Scralatchtica' came about." Around the time the record was being made, Kilmore also contributed DJ scratches to the album Introduction to Mayhem, by the nu/rap metal band Primer 55.

Touring
To support Make Yourself, the band and Buckethead opened for Primus on their Antipop tour in 1999, including at a millennium show on December 31, 1999. Early the following year, they performed at the SnoCore Tour with System of a Down and Mr. Bungle (who broke up shortly afterwards). The members of Incubus have since spoken of their pleasure at getting to play with Primus and Mr. Bungle, two artists whom they cite as influences. Mr. Bungle were met with a hostile crowd reception at some of the shows with Incubus and System of a Down. Mr. Bungle's bassist Trevor Dunn remarked in 2013 that "we were sort of the grandpas of the tour", adding that his band dressed up as the Village People at these shows in an attempt to anger the "metal kids" in the audience. Brandon Boyd later reflected in 2018, "Mr. Bungle was hugely influential to both of our bands, and they were playing second, like before Incubus and System of a Down." He added, "Mike Patton would be a real rabble rouser, and say horrible things to the audience. We would be on the side of stage cheering, fanboys."

Following this, Incubus went on an American tour with 311, which lasted from late April 2000 to the beginning of July 2000. From August to early September 2000, the band performed at that year's edition of Ozzfest. It was their second appearance at the festival, having earlier appeared at the 1998 edition. On October 12, 2000, the band performed the single "Stellar" on the Late Show with David Letterman. They had also performed the song on an August 2, 2000 episode of the Late Late Show with Craig Kilborn. Between October and November 2000, Incubus and Taproot supported Deftones on their "Back to School" tour for the album White Pony.

Release and commercial response
Shortly after the album's release, a death metal band from Louisiana called Incubus changed their name. Now known as Opprobrium, they had released two critically acclaimed albums in 1988 and 1990, titled Serpent Temptation and Beyond the Unknown, and were not aware of the Californian Incubus prior to the release of Make Yourself. The name change was voluntarily made in order to avoid confusion and any potential conflicts between the two bands. Serpent Temptation and Beyond the Unknown were sometimes incorrectly labelled as being early releases from the Californian Incubus, and Opprobrium eventually reissued these albums under their new name. A British hard rock/heavy metal band called Incubus had also released an album in 1984 titled To the Devil a Daughter, which was sometimes attributed to the Californian Incubus.

The first single "Pardon Me" was initially released to radio stations as an acoustic song, which led to the album version becoming popular as well. According to Boyd, it was Epic/Immortal Records that suggested "Pardon Me" be released as a single, telling MTV in 2000 that "we wrote 'Pardon Me' along with the whole album and never thought anything different about it." In August 2000, an EP titled When Incubus Attacks Volume 1 was released, featuring the acoustic version of "Pardon Me" and acoustic versions of the songs "Make Yourself" and "Stellar". The three acoustic versions of these songs originated from a November 1999 recording session in Chicago. The EP also featured additional material, including the song "Crowded Elevator", which was recorded during the Make Yourself sessions. "Crowded Elevator" had earlier appeared on the soundtrack album for the horror film Scream 3, which was released in January 2000.

By the time Make Yourself's final and most popular single "Drive" was released in November 2000, the band had already sold a million copies, with Einziger recalling in 2020 that, "'Pardon Me' was a big deal for us, 'Stellar' was the second song that came out and a big deal on MTV, and then when 'Drive' came out it really pushed everything over the top." Regarding their success around this time, Boyd said in 2020, "the most stark change was that all of a sudden women were coming to our concerts so when people would cheer after a song, the pitch went up considerably."

In 1999 and 2000, music videos were made for "Pardon Me", "Stellar" and "Drive". Less widely seen music videos were also made for the non-singles "I Miss You", "Privilege" and "Out from Under". The video for "Out from Under" was originally meant to be released as part of the 2001 When Incubus Attacks Volume 2 DVD, although it was not included as there was not enough space left on the disc. A tour edition for the album was released in 2001, with a second disc containing the three acoustic tracks and one live track.

Reception
Make Yourself has received generally positive reviews from critics. Steve Huey of AllMusic wrote that "Make Yourself makes a bid for broader mainstream success while keeping the group rooted in a hybrid of familiar late '90s alt-metal (i.e., roaring guitars, white-noise sonic textures, and an undercurrent of electronics) and Chili Pepper funk-rock. Where S.C.I.E.N.C.E. sometimes veered abruptly between the two genres without really fusing them, Make Yourself finds the band settling more comfortably into its sound."

Sal Cinquemani of Slant Magazine also gave it four out of five stars, writing in April 2001, "whether it’s rehashed hard rock or a non-enterprising rap-metal hybrid, there isn’t much to differentiate between most rock bands these days. Incubus, however, sets themselves apart with their second full-length release Make Yourself. A superb blend of metal guitar riffs, classic punk-rock mentality, and subtle hip hop and electronic elements, Incubus doesn’t just imitate these genres, but rather, redefines them in an otherwise non-revolutionary rock landscape." The New Rolling Stone Album Guide (2004) states that on Make Yourself, "Incubus had found a beta-male approach to new-metal: roaring, assymetrical riffs and herky-jerky dynamics coexisting with Boyd's yearning tenor and burgeoning melodic gift." In November 1999, Tulane Hullabaloo writer Henry Rienka claimed that it was a rap rock album in the style of bands such as Hed PE, despite consisting entirely of sung vocals. Rienka wrote that, "their union of grinding guitar, vinyl scratching, and urgent rock/rap vocals produces thrashing, grooving, and bouncing boobies." He added, "Make Yourself just doesn't quite match up with their breakthrough release; 1997's S.C.I.E.N.C.E.. On this effort, Incubus seems more concerned with playing with sounds and differentiating themselves from Kid Rock than they do with making enjoyable music."

Kevin Stewart-Panko of Canadian publication Exclaim! gave Make Yourself a positive review in December 1999, writing "Incubus is simply an awesome band. They have the distorted guitars, but they also have finger wagging melodies, an actual singer and dance floor elements. It’s similar stuff that plagued Faith No More about ten years ago, and Incubus has a noticeable FNM influence, especially Brandon Boyd's voice, which eerily recalls a youthful Mike Patton." In their November 1999 review, CMJ New Music Report also compared the album's vocals to Faith No More, and described the instrumentation as being a cross between the funk style of Primus and the "bloody new metal riffs" of Korn. They added that it is a "step away from the spastic, funkdafied metal of 1997's brilliant S.C.I.E.N.C.E. [but] definitely not a step down in quality." Adweek stated in April 2000 that Incubus had "finally made a mark", and that "their newest offering blends alternative metal with a little rap/rock thrown in for good measure." The Michigan Daily had a negative view of the band's new sound, giving the album only one out of five stars in October 1999. The review states that, "the group's once potent mix of funk, metal, hip-hop, soul and R&B was initially compared to 'Primus with a soul singer' and a '90s Red Hot Chili Peppers'. With the bland, radio friendly offering Make Yourself, it looks like Incubus is more likely to get compared to the likes of The Goo Goo Dolls and Sugar Ray."

Make Yourself was also met with a mixed reaction from some fans of the band, due to its more melodic sound. In a June 2000 interview with Spin, Brandon Boyd claimed, "when the album first came out, we got threatening letters from fans like 'You Sold Out'."

Legacy and accolades
The album is listed in the 2005 book 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die. Colin Larkin wrote in his 2011 book The Encyclopedia of Popular Music that Make Yourself was "a far slicker affair than previous outings", adding that it "utilized the latest studio technology and a greater range of sounds." In 2019, Kerrang! included it on a list titled "50 Rock and Metal Bands Whose Third Album Was Their Best". They wrote, "in ways moving away from their roots and definitively getting more anthemic and catchier with it, Make Yourself caught Incubus in a state of flux, but one in which they really found their feet. A little nu metal, a little alternative metal, a little funk, but altogether compelling." Loudwire praised it in 2019, stating that "while at first the album appears to be more of a mainstream break for the band, with Make Yourself they’ve managed to find a smoother way to incorporate hip-hop and funk more consistently into their brand of alternative metal", adding "it may not be the most heavy on the nu-metal sound because of this, but it allowed the mainstream to get a taste of something they may otherwise not have been looking for."

PopMatters included it on their 2020 list of "The Most Memorable Albums of 1999", with writer Theresa Dougherty remarking that they "became one of the first bands played on modern rock radio to effectively integrate a DJ into their sound." In 2021, it was named one of the 20 best metal albums of 1999 by Metal Hammer magazine. In a 2022 Louder Sound article, Brandon Boyd placed it fourth in his ranking of their studio albums. He stated, "It's not higher because it was a period of time that was gruelling. We were playing 9 or 10 shows a week: one in the morning and one in the evening, I learned to take naps on drum risers during soundchecks." Boyd also reflected in 2020 that, "all of the flags were blowing in a direction that was telling us we should’ve made another record like S.C.I.E.N.C.E. and that would’ve solidified our place in a small subgenre of rock and metal", adding "our intuitions were pulling us in a completely different direction and we trusted it. We ended up carving our own place in the world." In 2023, Alternative Press placed it third in their ranking of the band's studio albums.

Live performance
The first known performance of a Make Yourself song was at a March 4, 1999 concert at the Glass House in Pomona, California, which featured the live debut of "Nowhere Fast". All of the other songs from Make Yourself were performed live during the touring cycle in 1999 and 2000, with the exception of "Battlestar Scralatchtica", which is not known to have been performed until 2001 during the Morning View touring cycle. The band went on a tour of North America in 2019 to celebrate the album's 20th anniversary. In a 2019 interview, DJ Chris Kilmore stated, "for me personally, I actually really enjoy revisiting Make Yourself because my role in the band has expanded greatly into playing all kinds of keyboards and things like that. But when we were on Make Yourself, I just had two turntables. So I really get to showcase what I originally did in this band, which is really fun for me."

Personnel
Credits adapted from the album's liner notes.

Incubus
 * Brandon Boyd – vocals, percussion
 * Mike Einziger – guitar
 * DJ Kilmore – turntables
 * Dirk Lance – bass
 * Jose Pasillas – drums

Additional personnel

 * Dave Holdridge – cello on "Drive", "I Miss You", digital editing
 * Cut Chemist – additional scratching on "Battlestar Scralatchtica"
 * DJ Nu-Mark – additional scratching on "Battlestar Scralatchtica"
 * Michael "Elvis" Baskette – engineer
 * Evan Hollander – assisting engineer
 * Matt Griffin – assisting engineer
 * Stephen Marcussen — mastering at A&M
 * Rick Will – mixing
 * Scott Litt – mixing

title: Make Yourself


text:
Calthorpe Broad

Calthorpe Broad is a 43.5 ha biological Site of Special Scientific Interest east of Stalham in Norfolk. It is a Nature Conservation Review site, Grade I and a national nature reserve. It is also part of the Broadland Ramsar site and Special Protection Area, and The Broads Special Area of Conservation.

This broad has diverse fauna and flora. Water plants include mare's-tail, water violet, blunt-leaved pondweed, spiked water-milfoil, floating scirpus, yellow water-lily and the nationally scarce water soldier.

The site is private land with no public access.

title: Calthorpe Broad