Consistent with: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "{{a|crime|}}{{d|Consistent with||n}}A phrase which sounds more damning that it has any right to be. Consistency is an attestation of correlation that is often taken by people who should know better, to be one of causation. That, for example, “blotched, mottled skin is consistent with air embolus” is of little “probative value” unless blotched, mottled skin is not consistent with any other explanation. If the condition is consistent with a range of commo..." Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|crime|}}{{d|Consistent with||n}}A phrase which sounds more damning that it has any right to be. | {{a|crime|}}{{d|Consistent with|/kənˈsɪstᵊnt wɪð/|n}}A phrase which sounds more damning that it has any right to be. “Consistency” is an attestation of ''[[correlation]]'' that is often taken by people who should know better, to be one of ''[[causation]]''. | ||
Expert evidence that, for example, “blotched, mottled skin is consistent with air embolus”<ref>One of the critical planks of the Crown’s case against [[Lucy Letby]].</ref> is of little “probative value” unless blotched, mottled skin is ''not'' consistent with any other condition that might be prevalent or, for that matter, any non-medical explanation. | |||
If the | If the evidence is ''also'' “[[consistent with]]” a range of other common, frequently observed alternatives as well as the extremely rare and damning one that propels the prosecution case, then that [[base rate neglect|base rate]] is important: the prior probability that this is a case of air embolus remains low. | ||
{{Sa}} | {{Sa}} | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
*[[Direct evidence]] | *[[Direct evidence]] | ||
*[[Circumstantial evidence]] | *[[Circumstantial evidence]] | ||
{{ref}} | |||
Latest revision as of 18:04, 8 August 2024
|
Crime & Punishment
|
Consistent with
/kənˈsɪstᵊnt wɪð/ (n.)
A phrase which sounds more damning that it has any right to be. “Consistency” is an attestation of correlation that is often taken by people who should know better, to be one of causation.
Expert evidence that, for example, “blotched, mottled skin is consistent with air embolus”[1] is of little “probative value” unless blotched, mottled skin is not consistent with any other condition that might be prevalent or, for that matter, any non-medical explanation.
If the evidence is also “consistent with” a range of other common, frequently observed alternatives as well as the extremely rare and damning one that propels the prosecution case, then that base rate is important: the prior probability that this is a case of air embolus remains low.
See also
References
- ↑ One of the critical planks of the Crown’s case against Lucy Letby.