Peter Donnelly: How juries are fooled by statistics

Still, there can not be any statistical evidence against Sally Clark. You need hard evidence to prove a case of singular action contained. Any definition regarding outliers does have its reference to the general data. It contributes to understanding, but not a conviction.

Two Sides. Statistics will always demand a group of data to prove something. On the other side, Sally Clark case is juridical a special case and doesn't belong to the statical view. If hard evidence prove Sallys case, it will be regarded as special evidence, not general evidence. I believe it is ignorant to judge anyone in particular for something that comes from generalities. One day U may stand there marrying your partner, and u say -I only take u because u r not special, but very general :)

Daniel Jackson!

Guess what happened to the expert.

He had his medical licence revoked.

Then he appealed and a court gave him back his medical licence.

It's a scandal, really.

i love statistics, too bad i am horrible at math. after i took my stats clas, it changed my entire outlook & realized how ignorant people when they analyze the data.

Most wouldn't. Infact, most wouldn't even know where to begin to investigate that claim.

Uber cool...!

he took way to long to get to the subject of the talk, and also his jokes are not that funny. they were ok at the start, but at some point, just stop, and try to make what you're talking about interesting instead.

About the funny-ness of the jokes, well, that's a personal opinion, but I do agree that the intro should've been a bit shorter. Remove out the "other person's shoe" etc. But.... The presentation is extremely interesting in my opinion :)

He's an oxford mathematician. Did you expect him to be down? Hip? Cool flow with a funky jive? No dude, he's a fucking Oxford professor. This guy deserves so much respect it's hardly funny.