The authors of the current article view L&I's argument as based on a misunderstanding of the paradigm. L&I argue that the decision maker should not accept the expert's likelihood ratio without further consideration. This is agreed by all parties. In normal practice, there is often considerable and proper exploration in court of the basis for any probabilistic statement. The current article concludes, however, that L&I argue against a practice that does not exist and which no one advocates. Further, the current article concludes that the most informative summary of evidential weight is the likelihood ratio. The authors state that this is the summary that should be presented to a court in every scientific assessment of evidential weight, with supporting information about how it was constructed and on what it was based. (publisher abstract modified)
Downloads
Similar Publications
- Detecting and Processing Clandestine Human Remains with Unmanned Aerial Systems and Multispectral Remote Sensing
- Superhydrophobic Surface Modification of Polymer Microneedles Enables Fabrication of Multimodal Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy and Mass Spectrometry Substrates for Synthetic Drug Detection in Blood Plasma
- Technical note: Measuring Bicondylar Length in Computed Tomography Data