Slashdot Mirror
How Statistics Can Foul the Meaning of DNA Evidence
azoblue writes with a piece in New Scientist that might make you rethink the concept of "statistical certainty." As the article puts it, "even when analysts agree that someone could be a match for a piece of DNA evidence, the statistical weight assigned to that match can vary enormously, even by orders of magnitude." Azoblue writes: "For instance, in one man's trial the DNA evidence statistic ranged from 1/95,000 to 1/13, depending on the different weighing methods used by the defense and the prosecution."
You can prove anything with statistics.
Also 99.9% of all statistics are made up.
"You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
"Members of the jury, there's only a 1 in 13 chance that the defendant is actually the killer based on the DNA evidence. If the defendant were sitting in the jury with you, then there's an equal chance that it was any one of you. And since we can eliminate all 12 of you, that leaves only the defendant left over. So you must find the defendant guilty of all charges since he's the only one left out of 13 people. The prosecution rests."
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Or am I just trying to confuse you by throwing numbers at you?
Bingo! You now know how Stats work in the court room!
I would imagine the lip readers you're addressing are too interested in the sex to pay attention to your letters.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
That's why medical science is progressing so slowly and unpredictably.
On average anyway.