> 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

> 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?