tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726083.post116518196170950544..comments2023-10-10T09:46:13.964-04:00Comments on Tillers on Evidence and Inference: The Leading Experts on Reasonable DoubtAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03081983465036974432noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726083.post-1165346192803239972006-12-05T14:16:00.000-05:002006-12-05T14:16:00.000-05:00Further, in the same article:"The justices may als...Further, in the same article:<BR/>"The justices may also consider that when scientists confront a problem, they collect all the information they can about it and then draw conclusions."<BR/><BR/>H.Simon, bounded rationality and satisficing? Scientists are humans, too..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726083.post-1165344878168218502006-12-05T13:54:00.000-05:002006-12-05T13:54:00.000-05:00Today's NYT ("When Questions of Science Come to a ...Today's NYT ("When Questions of Science Come to a Courtroom, Truth Has Many Faces"):<BR/><BR/>"Typically, scientists don’t accept a finding unless, statistically, the odds are less than 1 in 20 that it occurred by chance. This standard is higher than the typical standard of proof in civil trials (“preponderance of the evidence”) and lower than the standard for criminal trials (“beyond a reasonable doubt”)."<BR/><BR/>The word "typical"! Tolstoy famously said-to the effect, that all marriages gone wrong are atypical.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com