Comment by fisian
18 hours ago
This principle is also highly relevant in safety critical systems for using redundant sensors. Just adding a second sensor is often not enough. Because if they disagree, which one do you trust.
One example of this is in airplanes.
I'm having trouble with this one due to a lack of experience, but if there is no consensus between the two parties, my assumption would be that you trust neither and ask again. Why is that not the case in a split-brain scenario here? Do you /have/ to make an immediate decision?
You could see that as a lack of detail of the problem as posed. Alternatively it's a breakdown when applying it as an analogy.
Time critical scenarios are one possibility.
In a safety critical scenario intermittent sensor failure might be possible but keep in mind that consistent failure is too.
A jury scenario is presumably one of consistent failure. There's no reason to expect that an intentional liar would change his answer upon being asked again.