3 ms·
I'm no expert in Bayesian statistics, but I think the outcome would have been exactly the same if the law enforcement officers were trained statisticians: 1) S
by ac29 11y ago
I'm no expert in Bayesian statistics, but I think the outcome would have been exactly the same if the law enforcement officers were trained statisticians:
1) Some percentage of people > 0% who buy hydroponic equipment are using it to illegally grow marijuana. Depending on what percentage you assign to this, this is reason enough to go to 2.
2) Some percentage of substances > 0% that test positive for THC are marijuana. Again, depending on what percentage you assign to this, this is enough reason to go to 3.
3) The house is searched, and the suspects are determined not to be growing marijuana.
The huge problem with Bayesian statistics, is that incredibly difficult to assign these probabilities objectively for many real world scenarios. How many people who purchase hydroponic equipment in Johnson County, Kentucky are growing marijuana? 1%? 50%? 90%? You could analyze this to death, and you'd never be able to put an exact number on it.
- geon 11y agoOooor... 1) You realize hydroponics has nothing to do with growing pot. 100 % of pot growers breath air. You don't use that to single them out. 2) You make sure the tested substance is actually pot. No test can be perfect, but it can be a LOT better than "sometimes it works". 3) You don't pretend you are military. Just knock the door, have chat with the white couple instead of pushing their face into the floor, pet the dog instead of shooting it, and have a look around for the pot growing operation instead of searching the entire house for something else.