The Experts below are selected from a list of 321 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Amit Pundik - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Problem with Naked Statistical Evidence
2021Co-Authors: Christian Dahlman, Amit PundikAbstract:The Problem of Naked Statistical Evidence by Christian Dahlman and Amit Pundik, joins the most recent debates on naked Statistical Evidence, in particular the objections to naked statistics based upon sensitivity, normalcy, incentives for lawful conduct, and free will. Dahlman and Pundik argue that the problem of naked Statistical Evidence is not an epistemic problem, as some assume, but is actually a moral problem.
-
Rethinking the Use of Statistical Evidence to Prove Causation in Criminal Cases: A Tale of (Im)Probability and Free Will
Law and Philosophy, 2020Co-Authors: Amit PundikAbstract:Whenever a litigant needs to prove that a certain result was caused in a specific way, what could be more compelling than citing the infinitesimal probability of that result emanating from an alternative natural cause? Contrary to this intuitive position, in the present article, I argue that the contention that a result was due to a certain cause should remain unaffected by Statistical Evidence of the extremely low probability of an alternative cause. The only scenario in which the low probability of a natural cause would be relevant to the case at hand is if it were contrasted with another piece of Statistical Evidence: the frequency of the criminal activity among people who are similar to the accused. However, by connecting the use of probabilistic generalisations in legal fact-finding to the issue of free will, I hold that, in Criminal Law, contrasting frequencies in this manner is objectionable—as a matter of principle—regardless of how reliable the Statistical analysis is. Consequently, if the low probability of a natural cause is probative only if contrasted with another piece of Statistical Evidence that is objectionable, then neither piece of Evidence should be admitted in criminal trials.
-
Was It Wrong to Use Statistics in R v Clark? A Case Study of the Use of Statistical Evidence in Criminal Courts
Bayesian Argumentation, 2013Co-Authors: Amit PundikAbstract:This chapter discusses the use of Statistical Evidence to prove the material fact of causation in criminal courts. It focuses on R v Clark , in which a mother was wrongfully convicted of murdering both her babies. In order to disprove a potential defence claim that the babies died of SIDS (aka cot death), the prosecution adduced statistics that allegedly showed that the probability of two SIDS deaths in a family similar to the Clarks was 1 in 73 million. This chapter considers the question of whether it was wrong to use such Statistical Evidence in Clark . Four common explanations of why it was wrong, each of which attributes the wrongful convictions to the use or misuse of the Statistical Evidence, are scrutinised and rejected. However, drawing on the theory of contrastive explanation, it is argued that it was still wrong in principle to use the SIDS statistics in Clark, because using them properly would require another piece of Evidence which is clearly objectionable: Statistical Evidence on the rate of smothering among mothers who are similar to Clark. Regardless of whether the exercise of comparing probabilities of SIDS and smothering is feasible, such an exercise should not be conducted as part of criminal proceedings. This chapter thus concludes that Clark should serve as a warning against any attempt to prove the fact of causation using Statistical Evidence about the rate of potential exonerating causes.
-
The Epistemology of Statistical Evidence
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2011Co-Authors: Amit PundikAbstract:Numerous accounts have been suggested to explain differences between Statistical and individualised Evidence and to justify restrictions on the use of Statistical Evidence in court. A dominant direction in such accounts is the idea that Statistical Evidence is lacking in some certain quality, making it epistemologically unwarranted for establishing the fact it is introduced to prove. Among the qualities suggested are luck, appropriate causal connection (Thomson 1986, Wright 1988), weight (Cohen 1977), and case-specificity (Stein 2005). Epistemic accounts thus constitute attempts to identify an intrinsic quality which individualised Evidence (such as eyewitness testimony, confession, the individual’s medical records) has but Statistical Evidence lacks, a quality which makes inference from the Statistical Evidence to the particular case epistemologically deficient. To the existing debate around epistemic accounts (for example, Schoeman 1987, Pundik 2008, Redmayne 2008), this paper adds several generic and inherent problems from which any epistemic account suffers. Based on these generic problems, it is concluded that the epistemic direction lacks potential. If there is any justification for restricting the use of Statistical Evidence in court, it does not lie in epistemology; it has to lie elsewhere.
-
The Epistemology of Statistical Evidence
The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 2011Co-Authors: Amit PundikAbstract:Numerous accounts have been suggested to explain differences between Statistical and individualised Evidence and to justify restrictions on the use of Statistical Evidence in court. A dominant direction in such accounts is the idea that Statistical Evidence is lacking in some certain quality, making it epistemologically unwarranted for establishing the fact it is introduced to prove. Among the qualities suggested are luck, appropriate causal connection, weight, and case-specificity. Epistemic accounts thus constitute attempts to identify an intrinsic quality which individualised Evidence (such as eyewitness testimony, confession, the individual's medical records) has but Statistical Evidence lacks, a quality which makes inference from the Statistical Evidence to the particular case epistemologically deficient. To the existing debate around epistemic accounts, this article adds several generic and inherent problems from which any epistemic account suffers. Based on these generic problems, it is concluded t...
Jerry H Gurwitz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Patient education about anticoagulant medication: Is narrative Evidence or Statistical Evidence more effective?
Patient Education and Counseling, 2007Co-Authors: Kathleen M Mazor, Elizabeth Dugan, Pamela Burgwinkle, Joann L. Baril, Frederick A. Spencer, Jerry H GurwitzAbstract:Abstract Objective To determine the relative impact of incorporating narrative Evidence, Statistical Evidence or both into patient education about warfarin, a widely used oral anticoagulant medication. Methods 600 patients receiving anticoagulant therapy were randomly assigned to view one of three versions of a video depicting a physician–patient encounter where anticoagulation treatment was discussed, or usual care (no video). The videos differed in whether the physician used narrative Evidence (patient anecdotes), Statistical Evidence, or both to highlight key information. 317 patients completed both the baseline and post-test questionnaires. Questions assessed knowledge, beliefs and adherence to medication and laboratory monitoring regimens. Results All three approaches positively effected patients’ warfarin-related knowledge, and beliefs in the importance of lab testing; there was also some indication that viewing a video strengthened belief in the benefits of warfarin. There was some indication that narrative Evidence had a greater impact than Statistical Evidence on beliefs about the importance of lab testing and on knowledge. No other Evidence of the differential effectiveness of either approach was found. No Statistically significant effect was found on intent to adhere, or documented adherence to lab monitoring. Conclusion Videos depicting a physician–patient dialogue about warfarin were effective in educating patients about anticoagulant medication, and had a positive impact on their beliefs. The use of narrative Evidence in the form of patient anecdotes may be more effective than Statistical Evidence for some patient outcomes. Practice implications Patients on oral anticoagulant therapy may benefit from periodic educational efforts reinforcing key medication safety information, even after initial education and ongoing monitoring. Incorporating patient anecdotes into physician–patient dialogues or educational materials may increase the effectiveness of the message.
-
Patient education about anticoagulant medication: is narrative Evidence or Statistical Evidence more effective?
Patient education and counseling, 2007Co-Authors: Kathleen M Mazor, Joann Baril, Elizabeth Dugan, Frederick Spencer, Pamela Burgwinkle, Jerry H GurwitzAbstract:To determine the relative impact of incorporating narrative Evidence, Statistical Evidence or both into patient education about warfarin, a widely used oral anticoagulant medication. 600 patients receiving anticoagulant therapy were randomly assigned to view one of three versions of a video depicting a physician-patient encounter where anticoagulation treatment was discussed, or usual care (no video). The videos differed in whether the physician used narrative Evidence (patient anecdotes), Statistical Evidence, or both to highlight key information. 317 patients completed both the baseline and post-test questionnaires. Questions assessed knowledge, beliefs and adherence to medication and laboratory monitoring regimens. All three approaches positively effected patients' warfarin-related knowledge, and beliefs in the importance of lab testing; there was also some indication that viewing a video strengthened belief in the benefits of warfarin. There was some indication that narrative Evidence had a greater impact than Statistical Evidence on beliefs about the importance of lab testing and on knowledge. No other Evidence of the differential effectiveness of either approach was found. No Statistically significant effect was found on intent to adhere, or documented adherence to lab monitoring. Videos depicting a physician-patient dialogue about warfarin were effective in educating patients about anticoagulant medication, and had a positive impact on their beliefs. The use of narrative Evidence in the form of patient anecdotes may be more effective than Statistical Evidence for some patient outcomes. Patients on oral anticoagulant therapy may benefit from periodic educational efforts reinforcing key medication safety information, even after initial education and ongoing monitoring. Incorporating patient anecdotes into physician-patient dialogues or educational materials may increase the effectiveness of the message.
Sang-cheol Seok - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Statistical Evidence Measured on a Properly Calibrated Scale for Multinomial Hypothesis Comparisons
Entropy, 2016Co-Authors: Veronica J. Vieland, Sang-cheol SeokAbstract:Measurement of the strength of Statistical Evidence is a primary objective of Statistical analysis throughout the biological and social sciences. Various quantities have been proposed as definitions of Statistical Evidence, notably the likelihood ratio, the Bayes factor and the relative belief ratio. Each of these can be motivated by direct appeal to intuition. However, for an Evidence measure to be reliably used for scientific purposes, it must be properly calibrated, so that one “degree” on the measurement scale always refers to the same amount of underlying Evidence, and the calibration problem has not been resolved for these familiar evidential statistics. We have developed a methodology for addressing the calibration issue itself, and previously applied this methodology to derive a calibrated Evidence measure E in application to a broad class of hypothesis contrasts in the setting of binomial (single-parameter) likelihoods. Here we substantially generalize previous results to include the m-dimensional multinomial (multiple-parameter) likelihood. In the process we further articulate our methodology for addressing the measurement calibration issue, and we show explicitly how the more familiar definitions of Statistical Evidence are patently not well behaved with respect to the underlying Evidence. We also continue to see striking connections between the calculating equations for E and equations from thermodynamics as we move to more complicated forms of the likelihood.
-
Statistical Evidence Measured on a Properly Calibrated Scale across Nested and Non-nested Hypothesis Comparisons
Entropy, 2015Co-Authors: Veronica J. Vieland, Sang-cheol SeokAbstract:Statistical modeling is often used to measure the strength of Evidence for or against hypotheses about given data. We have previously proposed an information-dynamic framework in support of a properly calibrated measurement scale for Statistical Evidence, borrowing some mathematics from thermodynamics, and showing how an evidential analogue of the ideal gas equation of state could be used to measure Evidence for a one-sided binomial hypothesis comparison (“coin is fair” vs. “coin is biased towards heads”). Here we take three important steps forward in generalizing the framework beyond this simple example, albeit still in the context of the binomial model. We: (1) extend the scope of application to other forms of hypothesis comparison; (2) show that doing so requires only the original ideal gas equation plus one simple extension, which has the form of the Van der Waals equation; (3) begin to develop the principles required to resolve a key constant, which enables us to calibrate the measurement scale across applications, and which we find to be related to the familiar Statistical concept of degrees of freedom. This paper thus moves our information-dynamic theory substantially closer to the goal of producing a practical, properly calibrated measure of Statistical Evidence for use in general applications
-
Statistical Evidence Measured on a Properly Calibrated Scale Across Nested and Non-nested Hypothesis Comparisons
arXiv: Statistics Theory, 2015Co-Authors: Veronica J. Vieland, Sang-cheol SeokAbstract:Statistical modeling is often used to measure the strength of Evidence for or against hypotheses on given data. We have previously proposed an information-dynamic framework in support of a properly calibrated measurement scale for Statistical Evidence, borrowing some mathematics from thermodynamics, and showing how an evidential analogue of the ideal gas equation of state could be used to measure Evidence for a one-sided binomial hypothesis comparison (coin is fair versus coin is biased towards heads). Here we take three important steps forward in generalizing the framework beyond this simple example. We (1) extend the scope of application to other forms of hypothesis comparison in the binomial setting; (2) show that doing so requires only the original ideal gas equation plus one simple extension, which has the form of the Van der Waals equation; (3) begin to develop the principles required to resolve a key constant, which enables us to calibrate the measurement scale across applications, and which we find to be related to the familiar Statistical concept of degrees of freedom. This paper thus moves our information-dynamic theory substantially closer to the goal of producing a practical, properly calibrated measure of Statistical Evidence for use in general applications.
Jos Hornikx - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Combining Anecdotal and Statistical Evidence in Real-Life Discourse: Comprehension and Persuasiveness
Discourse Processes, 2017Co-Authors: Jos HornikxAbstract:ABSTRACTThe persuasiveness of anecdotal Evidence and Statistical Evidence has been investigated in a large number of studies, but the combination of anecdotal and Statistical Evidence has hardly received research attention. The present experimental study therefore investigated the persuasiveness of this combination. It also examined whether the quality of anecdotal Evidence affects persuasiveness and to what extent people comprehend the combination of anecdotal and Statistical Evidence. In an experiment, people read a realistic persuasive message that was relevant to them. Results showed that anecdotal Evidence does not benefit from the inclusion of Statistical Evidence or from its intrinsic quality. The analysis of readers’ cognitive thoughts showed that only some participants comprehended the relationship between anecdotal and Statistical Evidence.
-
Evidence Quality and Persuasiveness: Germans Are Not Sensitive to the Quality of Statistical Evidence
Journal of Cognition and Culture, 2013Co-Authors: Jos Hornikx, Margje Ter HaarAbstract:Abstract For a long time, research in communication and argumentation has investigated which kinds of Evidence are most effective in changing people’s beliefs in descriptive claims. For each type of Evidence, such as Statistical or expert Evidence, high-quality and low-quality variants exist, depending on the extent to which Evidence respects norms for strong argumentation. Studies have shown that participants are sensitive to such quality variations in some, but not in all, cultures. This paper expands such work by comparing the persuasiveness of high- and low-quality Statistical and expert Evidence for participants from two geographically close cultures, the Dutch and the German. Study 1, in which participants (N=150) judge a number of claims with Evidence, underscores earlier findings that high-quality is more persuasive than low-quality Evidence for the Dutch, and – surprisingly – also shows that this is less the case for the Germans, in particular for Statistical Evidence. Study 2 with German participants (N=64) shows that again they are not sensitive to the quality of Statistical Evidence, and rules out that this finding can be attributed to their understanding of the rules of generalisation. Together, the findings in this paper underline the need to empirically investigate what norms people from different cultures have for high-quality Evidence, and to what extent these norms matter for persuasive success.
-
Is anecdotal Evidence more persuasive than Statistical Evidence? A comment on classic cognitive psychological studies
Studies in communication sciences, 2007Co-Authors: Jos HornikxAbstract:Recent reviews of communication studies on the persuasiveness of Evidence types have concluded that Statistical Evidence is more persuasive than anecdotal Evidence. Cognitive psychological studies on the representativeness heuristic, however, have shown a large impact of anecdotal Evidence (individuating information), and a small impact of Statistical Evidence (base rate information) on judgements. The difference between these conclusions can be explained by the research design of the psychological studies, which was in favor of anecdotal Evidence. This article discusses more recent studies in cognitive psychology, and demonstrates that Statistical Evidence has more impact than the classic cognitive psychological studies suggested. This discussion brings back some consistency in results on the persuasiveness of anecdotal and Statistical Evidence, and also presents areas for future research.
Kathleen M Mazor - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Patient education about anticoagulant medication: Is narrative Evidence or Statistical Evidence more effective?
Patient Education and Counseling, 2007Co-Authors: Kathleen M Mazor, Elizabeth Dugan, Pamela Burgwinkle, Joann L. Baril, Frederick A. Spencer, Jerry H GurwitzAbstract:Abstract Objective To determine the relative impact of incorporating narrative Evidence, Statistical Evidence or both into patient education about warfarin, a widely used oral anticoagulant medication. Methods 600 patients receiving anticoagulant therapy were randomly assigned to view one of three versions of a video depicting a physician–patient encounter where anticoagulation treatment was discussed, or usual care (no video). The videos differed in whether the physician used narrative Evidence (patient anecdotes), Statistical Evidence, or both to highlight key information. 317 patients completed both the baseline and post-test questionnaires. Questions assessed knowledge, beliefs and adherence to medication and laboratory monitoring regimens. Results All three approaches positively effected patients’ warfarin-related knowledge, and beliefs in the importance of lab testing; there was also some indication that viewing a video strengthened belief in the benefits of warfarin. There was some indication that narrative Evidence had a greater impact than Statistical Evidence on beliefs about the importance of lab testing and on knowledge. No other Evidence of the differential effectiveness of either approach was found. No Statistically significant effect was found on intent to adhere, or documented adherence to lab monitoring. Conclusion Videos depicting a physician–patient dialogue about warfarin were effective in educating patients about anticoagulant medication, and had a positive impact on their beliefs. The use of narrative Evidence in the form of patient anecdotes may be more effective than Statistical Evidence for some patient outcomes. Practice implications Patients on oral anticoagulant therapy may benefit from periodic educational efforts reinforcing key medication safety information, even after initial education and ongoing monitoring. Incorporating patient anecdotes into physician–patient dialogues or educational materials may increase the effectiveness of the message.
-
Patient education about anticoagulant medication: is narrative Evidence or Statistical Evidence more effective?
Patient education and counseling, 2007Co-Authors: Kathleen M Mazor, Joann Baril, Elizabeth Dugan, Frederick Spencer, Pamela Burgwinkle, Jerry H GurwitzAbstract:To determine the relative impact of incorporating narrative Evidence, Statistical Evidence or both into patient education about warfarin, a widely used oral anticoagulant medication. 600 patients receiving anticoagulant therapy were randomly assigned to view one of three versions of a video depicting a physician-patient encounter where anticoagulation treatment was discussed, or usual care (no video). The videos differed in whether the physician used narrative Evidence (patient anecdotes), Statistical Evidence, or both to highlight key information. 317 patients completed both the baseline and post-test questionnaires. Questions assessed knowledge, beliefs and adherence to medication and laboratory monitoring regimens. All three approaches positively effected patients' warfarin-related knowledge, and beliefs in the importance of lab testing; there was also some indication that viewing a video strengthened belief in the benefits of warfarin. There was some indication that narrative Evidence had a greater impact than Statistical Evidence on beliefs about the importance of lab testing and on knowledge. No other Evidence of the differential effectiveness of either approach was found. No Statistically significant effect was found on intent to adhere, or documented adherence to lab monitoring. Videos depicting a physician-patient dialogue about warfarin were effective in educating patients about anticoagulant medication, and had a positive impact on their beliefs. The use of narrative Evidence in the form of patient anecdotes may be more effective than Statistical Evidence for some patient outcomes. Patients on oral anticoagulant therapy may benefit from periodic educational efforts reinforcing key medication safety information, even after initial education and ongoing monitoring. Incorporating patient anecdotes into physician-patient dialogues or educational materials may increase the effectiveness of the message.
