3 ms·
I feel like many science-y people have an intuition that a measurement technique should not be used until you have explored its false positive rate. Perhaps jud
by bshanks 5y ago
I feel like many science-y people have an intuition that a measurement technique should not be used until you have explored its false positive rate. Perhaps judges don't share that intuition. Presumably judges receive their training in law school. One solution might be to persuade law schools to teach that to their students, by adding questions about this to bar exams.
- rozab 5y agoJudges must defer to experts, and experts are often really wrong. https://nndda.org/the-double-blind-attack/ https://nndda.org/the-double-blind-attack/ >While the scientific community highly endorses double-blind testing, it can have disastrous effects on canine teams. As there is no way to determine whether the canine responded correctly at the time of the alert, the question is, should the handler reward the canine? This is a vital question due to the fact that detection canines are largely trained on a fixed ratio reward system where the canine is rewarded immediately for almost every correct response.
- jjk166 5y agoA measurement system that only works when you can't calibrate it isn't a useful system. Also we live in a world where instantaneous communication at arbitrary locations is possible. How hard would it be to make an app where the evaluator can check if the canine's response warrants a treat?