> a) Ray Thomas writes: "It is well established in Law that Statistics is
> unreliable, deceptive and misleading."
Actually. I did not say that. It was Ted Harding's message of 9 Nov.
I have some sympathy for Ted Harding's view. My impression is that the
courts have often exposed the limitations of statistical theorising and even
more exposed the limitations of statisticians explanations of statistical
reasoning.
I'd go along with Roy from Hanoi. Nothing wrong with using
probability arguments. And with his suggestion that they are useful mainly
in shooting down cases where probability arguments have been incorrectly
used.
But are there any good examples where probability arguments could be said to
have a made a positive and significant contribution to the system of
justice, as distinct from rubbishing someeone else's misuse of statistics?
Ray Thomas
35 Passmore, Tinkers Bridge, Milton Keynes MK6 3DY
Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel 01908 679081 Fax 01908 550401
************************
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************
|