The Portuguese Police thought the dogs were 100% accurate.

[icabodcrane]

Statisically there is a much higher chance of the dogs having been accurate than there is of them having been inaccurate

That is a fact,  however to choose to dress it up

However much you choose to back track you mean.

80% reliability is pretty poor in the real world.

Would you fly in a plane that had a 80% chance of not crashing?

If the only other option  was to fly in a plane with a 20% chance of not crashing ...  you bet I would

[debunker]

However much you choose to back track you mean.

80% reliability is pretty poor in the real world.

Would you fly in a plane that had a 80% chance of not crashing?

If the only other option  was to fly in a plane with a 20% chance of not crashing ...  you bet I would

That is avoiding the question as you well know,

Your arguments have no substance. Odds of 4 to 1 are rarely good enough to stake any major risk.

[icabodcrane]

If the only other option  was to fly in a plane with a 20% chance of not crashing ...  you bet I would

That is avoiding the question as you well know,

Your arguments have no substance. Odds of 4 to 1 are rarely good enough to stake any major risk.

The dogs are more often right than wrong  ...  far  more often

You know it  ...  you brought us the statistics

[debunker]

The dogs are more often right than wrong  ...  far  more often

You know it  ...  you brought us the statistics

Yes. But they are wrong often enough to make their alerts a point to be very skeptical about.

I see you are stepping back even more from your original outrageous and demonstrably incorrect statement.

[debunker]

If the Mccanns had left it, it might not look odd. But from the time these dogs reacted they did all they could to try discredit them. Shooting oneself in foot is what I call that and piling more suspicion on. Their silly and untrue statements regarsing the cadaver dogs nust always backfired, the 75k spokesman didnt help here either, he seems to have put them on a hole more times than he dug them out of one, what a waste of donators money

In the non-bunnie world that is called protesting ones innocence. Not that you would understand.

[AnneGuedes]

Why don't some nurses spend their time caring, a so much needed activity,  instead of attacking ?

[debunker]

Why don't some nurses spend their time caring, a so much needed activity,  instead of attacking ?

This nurse is retired and has been for over a decade. This nurse is a house husband and father to two young boys. This nurse thinks you are rather silly with your baiting and goading about being a nurse.

What is it like being a Bunnie? Just so sad.

[John]

There is, of course,  a statistically high likelihood that the dogs were  100%  accurate in the McCann case

Explain please

The dogs are more often accurate, than inaccurate  ...  considerably more often

If you can present evidence, statistics,  or reviews that suggest otherwise, please do

Tell me something Icabodcrane.   How does a handler know if a dog has missed a target?

The statistics are bunkum basically.

Lets put this fantasy science into perspective.  Those that promote the dogs and earn a bundle out of them speak of figures exceeding 80% accuracy but the thing is they don't know when a dog has missed a trace because it isn't registered. Consequently the rate could be very much lower than that claimed.

And to think the Portuguese thought they were infallible?   Crayzee stuff 

[icabodcrane]

There is, of course,  a statistically high likelihood that the dogs were  100%  accurate in the McCann case

Explain please

The dogs are more often accurate, than inaccurate  ...  considerably more often

If you can present evidence, statistics,  or reviews that suggest otherwise, please do

Tell me something Icabodcrane.   How does a handler know if a dog has missed a target?

The statistics are bunkum basically.

Lets put this fantasy science into perspective.  Those that promote the dogs and earn a bundle out of them speak of figures exceeding 80% accuracy but the thing is they don't know when a dog has missed a trace because it isn't registered. Consequently the rate could be very much lower than that claimed.

And to think the Portuguese thought they were infallible?   Crayzee stuff 

So you base your conclusion on what  is not   known,  rather than  what is 

That is how fantasy is defined,  John

[John]

It is impossible to say what the true detection rate is for these dogs.  Hiding a bit of old bone in some rocks along a beach hardly qualifies as a scientific test or does it?   

[debunker]

There is, of course,  a statistically high likelihood that the dogs were  100%  accurate in the McCann case

Explain please

The dogs are more often accurate, than inaccurate  ...  considerably more often

If you can present evidence, statistics,  or reviews that suggest otherwise, please do

Tell me something Icabodcrane.   How does a handler know if a dog has missed a target?

The statistics are bunkum basically.

Lets put this fantasy science into perspective.  Those that promote the dogs and earn a bundle out of them speak of figures exceeding 80% accuracy but the thing is they don't know when a dog has missed a trace because it isn't registered. Consequently the rate could be very much lower than that claimed.

And to think the Portuguese thought they were infallible?   Crayzee stuff 

So you base your conclusion on what  is not   known,  rather than  what is 

That is how fantasy is defined,  John

"What is not known" is the underpinning of presumption of innocence, a point usually missing from the moral repertoire of bunnies.

The legal world starts from the presumption of innocence and then considers all evidence, taking into account its relevance and probative value. 80% correct is not good enough to meet the requirements of burden of proof or to overcome presumption of innocence.

[icabodcrane]

There is, of course,  a statistically high likelihood that the dogs were  100%  accurate in the McCann case

Explain please

The dogs are more often accurate, than inaccurate  ...  considerably more often

If you can present evidence, statistics,  or reviews that suggest otherwise, please do

Tell me something Icabodcrane.   How does a handler know if a dog has missed a target?

The statistics are bunkum basically.

Lets put this fantasy science into perspective.  Those that promote the dogs and earn a bundle out of them speak of figures exceeding 80% accuracy but the thing is they don't know when a dog has missed a trace because it isn't registered. Consequently the rate could be very much lower than that claimed.

And to think the Portuguese thought they were infallible?   Crayzee stuff 

So you base your conclusion on what  is not   known,  rather than  what is 

That is how fantasy is defined,  John

"What is not known" is the underpinning of presumption of innocence, a point usually missing from the moral repertoire of bunnies.

The legal world starts from the presumption of innocence and then considers all evidence, taking into account its relevance and probative value. 80% correct is not good enough to meet the requirements of burden of proof or to overcome presumption of innocence.

We're not talking law here debunker, we're talking science

Conclusions are never drawn on what is unevidenced   ...  you agree  ?

[puglove]

There is, of course,  a statistically high likelihood that the dogs were  100%  accurate in the McCann case

Explain please

The dogs are more often accurate, than inaccurate  ...  considerably more often

If you can present evidence, statistics,  or reviews that suggest otherwise, please do

Tell me something Icabodcrane.   How does a handler know if a dog has missed a target?

The statistics are bunkum basically.

Lets put this fantasy science into perspective.  Those that promote the dogs and earn a bundle out of them speak of figures exceeding 80% accuracy but the thing is they don't know when a dog has missed a trace because it isn't registered. Consequently the rate could be very much lower than that claimed.

And to think the Portuguese thought they were infallible?   Crayzee stuff 

So you base your conclusion on what  is not   known,  rather than  what is 

That is how fantasy is defined,  John

NO. Fantasy is expecting a dog to tell you what you hope to hear. Dogs have many talents, but their main one is telling you what you want to know. And pleasing you. Dogs have relatively small brains and incredible noses. They have nasal passage the size of a tennis court, but they would kill for, and be distracted by a pig's ear. Don't rely on a dog.

I'll get my coat.

[AnneGuedes]

At least, Shona, you've made a happy one !

[debunker]

We're not talking law here debunker, we're talking science

Conclusions are never drawn on what is unevidenced   ...  you agree  ?

Science works in exactly the same way- that is what the null hypothesis is about.

It starts off saying that we do not know what is the cause of something, it makes an educated guess at that cause and then investigates whether that cause has the effect predicted- comparing results with the favoured hypothesis against the null hypothesis. This is what gives science its power.

Same idea, same principle. Difficult to grasp, but you will get there if you make the effort to learn.