4 ms·

I do not think I understand your argument. In the case as you describe it the statistics are done incorrectly and cause a potential false conviction. How is th

by davorak 14y ago

I do not think I understand your argument. In the case as you describe it the statistics are done incorrectly and cause a potential false conviction. How is this different then an expert on autopsies incorrectly does the job which leads to a potential false conclusion. In both case an expert made a mistake or did their job poorly leading to a potentially unfortunate outcome. Why should one be banned and not the other?

Anderkent 14y ago
The argument is mainly that it's (intuitively) much more common to make a significant error in statistics than autopsy. Additionally I'd guess most times if you make a significant error during an autopsy, you are aware of it. Whereas it's much more difficult to know whether you made an error in your statistical analysis or not.
- davorak 14y ago
  When I made that statement I was think about how there have been blood spatter experts, bit mark experts, bug forensics experts that have all been discovered to frauds and cast doubts on to large swaths of forensics techniques that were accepted in general(by the court and public not always other experts in the field). That was impressions from remember articles where expertise in the above three fields was tested independently and experts were found to lack predictive power. I would have to search for that articles again if I wanted to provide a reference however I am working from memory.
DanBC 14y ago
For a criminal trial, with a jury? People are hopeless at statistics. Even on HN you'll find people making simple mistakes. Someone confidant presenting a mathematical argument would be persuasive to a jury, even if their numbers are totally bogus. > In both case an expert made a mistake or did their job poorly leading to a potentially unfortunate outcome. Why should one be banned and not the other? People doing the job poorly should be banned. But the nurse case is interesting because poor statistics became self-fulfilling. "We have some deaths, and this nurse is present when they happen, and so they are all suspicious", becomes "all the deaths that happen when this nurse is working are suspicious, and the deaths that don't happen when this nurse is working are not suspicious". And that sloppy thinking gets turned into "probability is 1 in a gajillion that these happen normally by chance."
- davorak 14y ago
  This is the case with any domain area knowledge though not just math and statistics, it is true for most any expert that gets up on the stand. That is why both the defense and the prosecutor can bring forth their own expert witnesses. How is this case different?
  - rayiner 14y ago
    Its not. There are strict guidelines about the use and presentation of expert testimony.
- davorak 14y ago
  >People doing the job poorly should be banned. But the nurse case is interesting because poor statistics became self-fulfilling. >"We have some deaths, and this nurse is present when they happen, and so they are all suspicious", becomes "all the deaths that happen when this nurse is working are suspicious, and the deaths that don't happen when this nurse is working are not suspicious". And that sloppy thinking gets turned into "probability is 1 in a gajillion that these happen normally by chance." Investigators have been known to be unduly influenced by pretty much any kind of evidence imaginable and then all further evidence is construed to support the original assumption/assertion. I need a more concrete difference or divider to promote other methods above statistics.
  - pseut 14y ago
    > Investigators have been known to be unduly influenced by pretty much any kind of evidence imaginable and then all further evidence is construed to support the original assumption/assertion. A different way of phrasing this is that investigators have been known to incorrectly apply even standard tools that they've been explicitly trained in. > I need a more concrete difference or divider to promote other methods above statistics. If by "promote" you mean that we should try to increase the statistical literacy of lawyers, police, judges, and the general public, than hells yeah. But encouraging armchair statisticians to try to determine causality and guilt from badly-collected observational data that's analyzed by financially-invested parties...? In the highest stakes setting we have? Really?
diminoten 14y ago
I believe the point being made is that it's very difficult to be assured of accuracy when applying numerical estimations to events. There is no discernable difference between the correct answer and an incorrect one, which makes the use of this technique incredibly dangerous when determining the guilt of a person in the court of law.
- davorak 14y ago
  > There is no discernable difference between the correct answer and an incorrect one, For non-experts in forensics vs statistics can an average jury member make better decisions about expert level results in forensics compared to statistics/math? It is possible that statistics and math are just less common knowledge and most jury members would then be able to discerne finner differences in forensics then compared to statistics. If this is the case though there is nothing incorrect about the tool, statistis which seems to be implied in the original article, and it is just a lack of common understand that in theory if correct would allow for a new tool to be used.
damoncali 14y ago
Would you trust a jury to recognize that the prosecuting attorney got the stats wrong if it was your ass on the line? I would not.
- davorak 14y ago
  I currently can not distinguish trusting them about stats vs about blood spatter, bit mark, DNA, evidence. Why should I trust them less for stats? Math does hold a honorary position in society while also being often being disliked(USA here) I will have to think about weather that is enough to single stats out from the others.

by davorak 14y ago

Anderkent 14y ago

The argument is mainly that it's (intuitively) much more common to make a significant error in statistics than autopsy. Additionally I'd guess most times if you make a significant error during an autopsy, you are aware of it. Whereas it's much more difficult to know whether you made an error in your statistical analysis or not.

davorak 14y ago
When I made that statement I was think about how there have been blood spatter experts, bit mark experts, bug forensics experts that have all been discovered to frauds and cast doubts on to large swaths of forensics techniques that were accepted in general(by the court and public not always other experts in the field). That was impressions from remember articles where expertise in the above three fields was tested independently and experts were found to lack predictive power. I would have to search for that articles again if I wanted to provide a reference however I am working from memory.

DanBC 14y ago

For a criminal trial, with a jury? People are hopeless at statistics. Even on HN you'll find people making simple mistakes. Someone confidant presenting a mathematical argument would be persuasive to a jury, even if their numbers are totally bogus. > In both case an expert made a mistake or did their job poorly leading to a potentially unfortunate outcome. Why should one be banned and not the other? People doing the job poorly should be banned. But the nurse case is interesting because poor statistics became self-fulfilling. "We have some deaths, and this nurse is present when they happen, and so they are all suspicious", becomes "all the deaths that happen when this nurse is working are suspicious, and the deaths that don't happen when this nurse is working are not suspicious". And that sloppy thinking gets turned into "probability is 1 in a gajillion that these happen normally by chance."

davorak 14y ago
This is the case with any domain area knowledge though not just math and statistics, it is true for most any expert that gets up on the stand. That is why both the defense and the prosecutor can bring forth their own expert witnesses. How is this case different?
- rayiner 14y ago
  Its not. There are strict guidelines about the use and presentation of expert testimony.
davorak 14y ago
>People doing the job poorly should be banned. But the nurse case is interesting because poor statistics became self-fulfilling. >"We have some deaths, and this nurse is present when they happen, and so they are all suspicious", becomes "all the deaths that happen when this nurse is working are suspicious, and the deaths that don't happen when this nurse is working are not suspicious". And that sloppy thinking gets turned into "probability is 1 in a gajillion that these happen normally by chance." Investigators have been known to be unduly influenced by pretty much any kind of evidence imaginable and then all further evidence is construed to support the original assumption/assertion. I need a more concrete difference or divider to promote other methods above statistics.
- pseut 14y ago
  > Investigators have been known to be unduly influenced by pretty much any kind of evidence imaginable and then all further evidence is construed to support the original assumption/assertion. A different way of phrasing this is that investigators have been known to incorrectly apply even standard tools that they've been explicitly trained in. > I need a more concrete difference or divider to promote other methods above statistics. If by "promote" you mean that we should try to increase the statistical literacy of lawyers, police, judges, and the general public, than hells yeah. But encouraging armchair statisticians to try to determine causality and guilt from badly-collected observational data that's analyzed by financially-invested parties...? In the highest stakes setting we have? Really?

diminoten 14y ago

I believe the point being made is that it's very difficult to be assured of accuracy when applying numerical estimations to events. There is no discernable difference between the correct answer and an incorrect one, which makes the use of this technique incredibly dangerous when determining the guilt of a person in the court of law.

davorak 14y ago
> There is no discernable difference between the correct answer and an incorrect one, For non-experts in forensics vs statistics can an average jury member make better decisions about expert level results in forensics compared to statistics/math? It is possible that statistics and math are just less common knowledge and most jury members would then be able to discerne finner differences in forensics then compared to statistics. If this is the case though there is nothing incorrect about the tool, statistis which seems to be implied in the original article, and it is just a lack of common understand that in theory if correct would allow for a new tool to be used.

damoncali 14y ago

Would you trust a jury to recognize that the prosecuting attorney got the stats wrong if it was your ass on the line? I would not.

davorak 14y ago
I currently can not distinguish trusting them about stats vs about blood spatter, bit mark, DNA, evidence. Why should I trust them less for stats? Math does hold a honorary position in society while also being often being disliked(USA here) I will have to think about weather that is enough to single stats out from the others.