4 ms·

While my stance on forensics is not as negative as the parent comment, I don't see how you are drawing such a sharp distinction between the "science" and the "i

While my stance on forensics is not as negative as the parent comment, I don't see how you are drawing such a sharp distinction between the "science" and the "interpretation". They are not separate things. When a scientist proposes a new test, they include measurement techniques as well as a method of interpretation. If a medical test is used in a way that is frequently prone to misinterpretation, it would be fair to call that entire test useless.

hervature 5y ago
I disagree. The canonical example here are p-values. Completely valid and accepted interpretation which will forever be abused. In the medical realm, we see the same things with false-positive and false-negative rates causing massive confusion. An even more recent example is COVID vaccine efficacy. I would take the bet that 90% of the general population could not give the accurate definition of what the definition of efficacy is.
- hellbannedguy 5y ago
  Just curious about the downvotes. 1. Was it he said statistics lie sometimes? 2. Or, questioned 90% efficacy of some Covid vaccines?
  - hervature 5y ago
    I think you are getting downvoted because (hopefully) people recognize I didn't question their efficacy. Just that 90% of people know what that means.
giantg2 5y ago
"If a medical test is used in a way that is frequently prone to misinterpretation, it would be fair to call that entire test useless." And yet there are many examples of this with malpractice, unnecessary deaths, etc. Lyme tests are notorious for false negatives depending on the lab you use. It's also a widely held belief that you want tests done in the middle of the week instead of on a Friday or weekend because some techs just want to get out of there and are more prone to mistakes. The reason I'm drawing a hard line is because of fact vs opinion. This same line gets drawn in court. They will ask experts if it's a fact or an opinion that they testified about (usually to attack a witness). Autopsies are full of facts, and then there are opinions on what those facts mean. If it's an opinion, it's possible to counter it with another professional opinion. The only sort of opinion they should be sharing is included, excluded, or undetermined. Hair is not a "match", but it could include or exclude someone and maybe mathematical probabilities.

hervature 5y ago

I disagree. The canonical example here are p-values. Completely valid and accepted interpretation which will forever be abused. In the medical realm, we see the same things with false-positive and false-negative rates causing massive confusion. An even more recent example is COVID vaccine efficacy. I would take the bet that 90% of the general population could not give the accurate definition of what the definition of efficacy is.

hellbannedguy 5y ago
Just curious about the downvotes. 1. Was it he said statistics lie sometimes? 2. Or, questioned 90% efficacy of some Covid vaccines?
- hervature 5y ago
  I think you are getting downvoted because (hopefully) people recognize I didn't question their efficacy. Just that 90% of people know what that means.

giantg2 5y ago

"If a medical test is used in a way that is frequently prone to misinterpretation, it would be fair to call that entire test useless." And yet there are many examples of this with malpractice, unnecessary deaths, etc. Lyme tests are notorious for false negatives depending on the lab you use. It's also a widely held belief that you want tests done in the middle of the week instead of on a Friday or weekend because some techs just want to get out of there and are more prone to mistakes. The reason I'm drawing a hard line is because of fact vs opinion. This same line gets drawn in court. They will ask experts if it's a fact or an opinion that they testified about (usually to attack a witness). Autopsies are full of facts, and then there are opinions on what those facts mean. If it's an opinion, it's possible to counter it with another professional opinion. The only sort of opinion they should be sharing is included, excluded, or undetermined. Hair is not a "match", but it could include or exclude someone and maybe mathematical probabilities.