>A scientist comes up with a test to determine if someone is the President. It's a poor analogy, because it's not clear to people why such a test is "natural."

>A scientist comes up with a test to determine if someone is the President. It's a poor analogy, because it's not clear to people why such a test is "natural." It's not clear how your specific test could be broken in the peculiar way that it would have 99.999% chance to confirm that someone who isn't the president is indeed not the president. And people would get caught up with what you mean by "If they are" and "If they are not," since it's not clear how you would know the error of your test without a real president around to identify. False positives or false negatives are not at all intuitive to people who have never done experimental design. Most people would get stuck at percentages anyhow.