3 ms·
> No, they only need to describe the statistical probability of an error I can see that comprehension is not your strong suit. As I said, they must show that
by rprasad 14y ago
> No, they only need to describe the statistical probability of an error
I can see that comprehension is not your strong suit. As I said, they must show that a mistake was, or could have been made.
You can show that a mistake could have been made by showing the statistical probability of an error. Generally, this statistical evidence must be sufficiently specific as to apply to the circumstances of the matter at hand.
- lutusp 14y ago> I can see that comprehension is not your strong suit. Here is what you said: "Because the defense must first provide some evidence that a mistake was, or could have been made" It's false, I corrected you. A statistical probability of a false positive is not evidence that a mistake was, or could have been, made. It is a statistical prediction for a particular outcome, and it's not a mistake -- the practitioner is assumed to be performing the procedures as specified, and is blameless. If I say that, given the usual distribution of population IQs (mean 100, SD 15), that 4.78% of the population will have an IQ at or above 125, is that a mistake? Will someone be brought up on charges of negligence?
- rprasad 14y agoLogically, you are correct, and if that's what you originally meant than I misunderstood you. Legally, that's not how the law works. And in all fairness, when dealing with the law, what is "legal" trumps what is "logical."
- lutusp 14y ago> Legally, that's not how the law works. Actually, it is. Contrary to your claim, a statistical outlier, a false positive, is not called a "mistake" and no one is brought up on charges. The legal term is typically "Act of God" or another similar term. > And in all fairness, when dealing with the law, what is "legal" trumps what is "logical." Sometimes. Not this time.