CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.

[slartibartfast]

Reduce as in making certainty less likely?

It reduces the probability of an event.

[stephen25000]

I have a totally open mind.

I am open to anything from Madeleine being killed in an act of devil worship by the Tapas 9 , through 'woke and wandered' to 'killed in the apartment' to abducted alive and the dog *&*%£ alerts being false.

All I require is evidence to make a decision. There is inadequate evidence to decide as every investigation so far has found.

I.e. There is no evidence of anything.

Which sums up SY's efforts to a tee.

[stephen25000]

Reduce as in making certainty less likely?

Are you talking about dependent or independent events ?

[OxfordBloo]

Are you talking about dependent or independent events ?

Independent

[stephen25000]

Independent

Are you sure ?

[OxfordBloo]

Are you sure ?

Yes. In the case of cadaver odour being present, Keela is failing to react to blood and Eddie is positively reacting to Cadaver odour.

Two separate tests of separate items being independently tested.

[G-Unit]

Links please to ANY blinded peer reviewed research that shows infallibility.

Science demands that positive claims need to be proved whereas sceptical claims are the null assumption.

Until infallibility is proved, science and forensics require that we assume fallibility.

The onus to provide links is on the person referring to something which only they have seen, but which they are using to support their argument;

Why is it that the burden is on the person who makes the claim?  Well think whether or not it is a better way to proceed through life to accept anything and everything that people claim to be so.  Experience should instruct every thinking human that there is a high probability that not everything that people claim to be true is actually true.  Some claims might be made with the claimant aware that the claim is not true and some claims might be made with the claimant thinking that they are true but being mistaken.  As it is for most humans not a very good idea to proceed through life based on beliefs that are false and thinking beliefs and claims to be true when they are not, most humans and those who would use reason to guide them will want some evidence and reasoning to support a claim being asserted to be true.  So the burden is on those who make claims to offer reason and evidence in support of those claims.
http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm

[G-Unit]

No. A claim to scepticism does not require support.

You are quoting studies to support your claim. Please provide links to said studies.

[slartibartfast]

So as both Eddie and Keela have a probability of less than one, their joint test is less reliable than any single reaction from each of them.
!

If they were independent events yes. You do have to look at all the different scenarios to get a full picture of the probabilities. As per my data, the only scenario that gives a false positive is if the Eddie is wrong and if Keela doesn't Alert. If both Eddie and Keela are wrong and  assuming your 80% then that has a probability of 4%.

[G-Unit]

Can you explain how they could have a probability of higher than one. There is no proof that any scent dog has ever approached a probability of one.

You are the one making claims, not me, so i don't have to explain anything.

[OxfordBloo]

You are quoting studies to support your claim. Please provide links to said studies.

Whether or not I know of studies does not mean that producing them would help. Black Swan argument again.

My contention is solely that dogs are NOT 100% accurate. That is the starting assumption for any scientific question- assume ignorance- we do not know. Then seek out evidence to disprove the notion that it is unknown.

All I am saying is that I am unaware of any evidence to prove they dogs are 100% accurate. If someone insists they are, they need to prove it. Meantime I continue to insist that we simply do not know and cannot assume any certainty for their accuracy.

That is scientific method.

[OxfordBloo]

You are the one making claims, not me, so i don't have to explain anything.

I am claiming ignorance- we do not know how accurate dogs are. They could be 100% they could be 50%, K just don't know.

Please provide evidence to convince me how I should decide. Meanwhile I shall continue to believe that WE DO NOT KNOW.

[OxfordBloo]

If they were independent events yes. You do have to look at all the different scenarios to get a full picture of the probabilities. As per my data, the only scenario that gives a false positive is if the Eddie is wrong and if Keela doesn't Alert. If both Eddie and Keela are wrong and  assuming your 80% then that has a probability of 4%.

You do not understand statistics.

Identification of cadaver odour by the use of Eddie and Keela is the product of their individual uncertainties, therefore cadaver odour detection is less than single test detections.

[slartibartfast]

You do not understand statistics.

Identification of cadaver odour by the use of Eddie and Keela is the product of their individual uncertainties, therefore cadaver odour detection is less than single test detections.

The only interesting probability is that of them both being wrong, not them both being right.

[OxfordBloo]

The only interesting probability is that of them both being wrong, not them both being right.

No. You do not understand statistics.