Re: Legal Question? Daubert

[Guest guest]

Tony,

In all of the Daubert cases you cited, the 4 tests are something we

should keep in mind. These are

1. Is the expert's methodology such that it can be tested and

verified?

2. Has the theory or technique been subjected to peer

review and publication?

3. What is the methodology's known or potential rate of

error?

4. Has the methodology been generally accepted within the

relevant scientific community?

I found you #10 interesting.

10. In looking at my case data I ran across this which I thought was

succinctly appropriate:

“Environmental science, like epidemiology, is ill-suited to lead a fact

finder toward definitive answers, dealing as it does in statistical

probabilities. Here there was only one expert opinion before the court,

and the court was obliged not to ignore it.” Id. (internal quotations

and citations omitted).

It appears that you were quoting probabilities in your " expert opinion "

I would guess, something on the order P <0.01?

Do you know any ranges of probabilities that have been used in defining

" Certainty. " I know, typically, the lowest

P of <0.05 is used in many studies, but what about " Expert opinions " ?

Another way of asking this question is

" what chance of being wrong are we conformable with in giving an

" opinion " or " expert opinion. " ?

Would I be comfortable with being wrong 10% of the time, 20% of the

time? 49% of the time?

Bob

[Guest guest]

Bob,

I'm not the best source of info on legal stuff, but my understanding is that the burden of proof for a scientific expert in civil litigation is to convince the trier of fact, within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that there is clear and convincing evidence, or that it is more probable than not, for an alleged effect to have been caused by something or not. There is no requirement for any minimum statistical probability of certainty. A well-founded argument based upon sound scientific principles and relevant facts and circumstances is usually enough for an expert to make a good case for either side.

If one expert is 80% certain and an opposing expert is 85% certain, it doesn't mean that the 85% certain guy wins. The guy with the most convincing argument relative to the specifics of the case usually wins.

Steve Temes

“Environmental science, like epidemiology, is ill-suited to lead a fact

finder toward definitive answers, dealing as it does in statistical

probabilities. Here there was only one expert opinion before the court,

and the court was obliged not to ignore it.†Id. (internal quotations

and citations omitted).

It appears that you were quoting probabilities in your "expert opinion"

I would guess, something on the order P <0.01?

Do you know any ranges of probabilities that have been used in defining

"Certainty." I know, typically, the lowest

P of <0.05 is used in many studies, but what about "Expert opinions"?

Another way of asking this question is

"what chance of being wrong are we conformable with in giving an

"opinion" or "expert opinion."?

Would I be comfortable with being wrong 10% of the time, 20% of the

time? 49% of the time?

Bob