HN2new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

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.



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.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: