4 ms·

I'm a numbers guy, but I believe the court's skepticism around statistics is warranted. Many concepts in statistics appear to be simple, but have lots of subtle

I'm a numbers guy, but I believe the court's skepticism around statistics is warranted. Many concepts in statistics appear to be simple, but have lots of subtleties. There are lots of hidden assumptions in many statistical numbers, and it's not rare to see profesionals making mistakes. If the court has to decide in the case of a bridge collapse, there will probably be a good amount of advanced mathematical modelling presented as evidence, and the justices will ask for some expert advice, they would't try to grok the math themselves. Similarly with statistics, it would be very prudent for them to defer to the experts, and even more so, considering that statistics appears deceivingly simple on the surface, while it's so easy to get it wrong.

zardo 9y ago
This isn't a good argument for ignoring statistical evidence though, it's a good argument for augmenting the judiciary with a technical/legal expert staff. Expert witnesses don't really help the situation, as both sides will produce experts that make technical arguments.
- credit_guy 9y ago
  Excellent suggestion. The article actually mentions this idea "McGhee, who helped develop the efficiency gap measure, wondered if the court should hire a trusted staff of social scientists to help the justices parse empirical arguments. " I think it's a very good idea. As for my original argument, I didn't advocate for the court to ignore statistical evidence. I think courts in general should weigh all the evidence. They just should exercise caution with statistical arguments, it's only too easy to get it wrong.