Have the dog alerts any significance?

[ShiningInLuz]

There are almost no scientific studies to support the alerts
If there were these could be cited in court and used in evidence
They do not exist


so where are the studies which support the alerts...where are the studies that show how accurate  they are

Here we go round the mulberry bush.  If you discard all the studies on the accuracy of the dogs, then you can claim there are none.  It will not change reality.

It's not an issue of the studies, of which the links here show there are dozens.  And as I said earlier, the norm in reported science studies is that they daisy-chain into dozens more.

The issue is supporting evidence, such as forensics.

[Mr Gray]

Here we go round the mulberry bush.  If you discard all the studies on the accuracy of the dogs, then you can claim there are none.  It will not change reality.

It's not an issue of the studies, of which the links here show there are dozens.  And as I said earlier, the norm in reported science studies is that they daisy-chain into dozens more.

The issue is supporting evidence, such as forensics.

none of the studies cited give us any guide as to the accuracy of the alerts....none

[ShiningInLuz]

none of the studies cited give us any guide as to the accuracy of the alerts....none

Wow, you must speed-read faster than a speeding bullet.

[Mr Gray]

Well, there is some more to add.................

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0146963#sec020

From the discussion:

"The present study showed that our rigorous training procedure leads to a very high level of identification in human odour matching-to-sample tasks, with dogs alerting to target odours in 85 ± 4% of cases and never alerting to non-target human odours (100% specificity). According to Jezierski et al. (2014, [36]), high detection scores should be regarded as exceptional and indeed dubious as they depend on a variety of factors such as odour presentation method, odour source and, of course, individual differences in dogs’ olfactory detection thresholds. The present data confirm this attitude, inasmuch as sensitivity was critically dependent on the type of odour presentation during the task and specificity dependent on the dog’s breeding (FAs made exclusively by Belgian Shepherds)."


...............................

'This one specifically looks at cadaver dog performance. You might have to go to a different site to read the full text'

http://www.fsijournal.org/article/S0379-0738(14)00352-1/abstract

this article does not seem to be about cadaver dogs at all......its about matching suspects to a crime scene via their odour...so nothing to do with cadaver dogs at all

[Mr Gray]

Wow, you must speed-read faster than a speeding bullet.

the study stephen quoted isnt even about cadaver dogs but live human scent recognition,,,,seems my speed reading is very good

[ShiningInLuz]

this article does not seem to be about cadaver dogs at all......its about matching suspects to a crime scene via their odour...

Try the second link if the first does not agree with you.

"Cadaver dogs: Unscientific myth or reliable biological devices?

Highlights

•We aimed to detect the reliability of dogs trained to locate human cadaveric blood.
•We adopted an optimized and rigorously controlled experimental design.
•The primary detection task was human cadaveric blood at very low concentrations.
•Dogs’ discriminative capability among confounding substances was also investigated.
•Dogs represent a scientifically unassailable tool in detecting human blood traces."

and

"Our results revealed that well trained dogs were able to detect human cadaveric blood samples even when very low concentrations of blood were stored in the tubes"

Dog capability has been studied by scientists.  On dozens of occasions.

It is still not relevant in court.

[Mr Gray]

Try the second link if the first does not agree with you.

"Cadaver dogs: Unscientific myth or reliable biological devices?

Highlights

•We aimed to detect the reliability of dogs trained to locate human cadaveric blood.
•We adopted an optimized and rigorously controlled experimental design.
•The primary detection task was human cadaveric blood at very low concentrations.
•Dogs’ discriminative capability among confounding substances was also investigated.
•Dogs represent a scientifically unassailable tool in detecting human blood traces."

and

"Our results revealed that well trained dogs were able to detect human cadaveric blood samples even when very low concentrations of blood were stored in the tubes"

Dog capability has been studied by scientists.  On dozens of occasions.

It is still not relevant in court.

#this article is about detecting remnants of cadaveric blood.....not remnant scent

[stephen25000]

Try the second link if the first does not agree with you.

"Cadaver dogs: Unscientific myth or reliable biological devices?

Highlights

•We aimed to detect the reliability of dogs trained to locate human cadaveric blood.
•We adopted an optimized and rigorously controlled experimental design.
•The primary detection task was human cadaveric blood at very low concentrations.
•Dogs’ discriminative capability among confounding substances was also investigated.
•Dogs represent a scientifically unassailable tool in detecting human blood traces."

and

"Our results revealed that well trained dogs were able to detect human cadaveric blood samples even when very low concentrations of blood were stored in the tubes"

Dog capability has been studied by scientists.  On dozens of occasions.

It is still not relevant in court.

You're wasting your time S.I.L.


He won't acknowledge what is there for anyone to read.

[ShiningInLuz]

still waiting for your list of scientific papers supporting the accuracy of the alerts

I said the dogs' capability had been studied.

I did not say such studies "supported the accuracy of the alerts".

You claimed there were no such scientific studies.

Did they test dead horse in that first link?  Horse of the flogged variety?

I wonder if the talho in Portelas sells cavalo?  I'm sure I can lay my hands on a recipe or adapt beef bourguignon.

[Mr Gray]

You're wasting your time S.I.L.


He won't acknowledge what is there for anyone to read.

yoy quoted 2 articles that you THOUGHT supported your case

the first was not even about cadaver dogs but about live human scent dogs

the second related to teh detection of cadaveric blood remnants



neither related to remnant scent

[ShiningInLuz]

#this article is about detecting remnants of cadaveric blood.....not remnant scent

When did you shift the goalposts to remnant scent?

What do the dogs do to detect cadaveric blood?  Lick it?  Or scent it?

[Mr Gray]

I said the dogs' capability had been studied.

I did not say such studies "supported the accuracy of the alerts".

You claimed there were no such scientific studies.  And that Gerry had expertise in dog capability.

Did they test dead horse in that first link?  Horse of the flogged variety?

I wonder if the talho in Portelas sells cavalo?  I'm sure I can lay my hands on a recipe or adapt beef bourguignon.

Quote from: davel on Today at 04:06:14 PM
There are almost no scientific studies to support the alerts
If there were these could be cited in court and used in evidence
They do not exist
There are dozens, probably hundreds.




the post is still there


i said there are no scientific studies to support the alerts.....youu said there were dozedns posiibly hundreds


you are now trying to say something different

[Mr Gray]

When did you shift the goalposts to remnant scent?

What do the dogs do to detect cadaveric blood?  Lick it?  Or scent it?

i talked about the alerts...the ones in this case...the ones you said can only be confirmed by forensic evidence..

the ones we have been discussing...the ones relating to remnant scent

[ShiningInLuz]

Here's what you said.

"Gerry was right re the science behind the alerts." 

And what I asked was "Did he get that information from scientific studies?  Surely you are not claiming he fabricated it?"

You claimed Gerry had expertise in the science of the dog alerts, whilst simultaneously claiming there were nearly no scientific studies of dog capability.

[Mr Gray]

Here's what you said.

"Gerry was right re the science behind the alerts." 

And what I asked was "Did he get that information from scientific studies?  Surely you are not claiming he fabricated it?"

You claimed Gerry had expertise in the science of the dog alerts, whilst simultaneously claiming there were nearly no scientific studies of dog capability.

I said gerry was right.....i did not say he had expertise in the science of dog alerts