Comments on: Metrology and Reporting Uncertainty http://www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com/metrology-and-reporting-uncertainty/ Forensic Science Reference for Lawyers Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:40:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Karl Ebner http://www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com/metrology-and-reporting-uncertainty/comment-page-1/#comment-814 Karl Ebner Mon, 16 Aug 2010 00:02:00 +0000 http://www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com/?p=76#comment-814 Your metrology points are reassuring and a real boost to my efforts here in Mivchigan. I have testified in Michigan that the Daubert error rate is not applied and BACs/BrAC are products of plug and play mentality without conveying the science through appropriate statistical means. A BAC error rate (difference between two or more measures on the same HS-GC system) must be equivalent or smaller than that for Blood Controls analyzed with the reported BAC and documented in the laboratory established QC system. These are not practiced by Michigan experts and have been exposed in this hearing. Thank you again for your insight/s. Your metrology points are reassuring and a real boost to my efforts here in Mivchigan. I have testified in Michigan that the Daubert error rate is not applied and BACs/BrAC are products of plug and play mentality without conveying the science through appropriate statistical means. A BAC error rate (difference between two or more measures on the same HS-GC system) must be equivalent or smaller than that for Blood Controls analyzed with the reported BAC and documented in the laboratory established QC system. These are not practiced by Michigan experts and have been exposed in this hearing.

Thank you again for your insight/s.

]]> By: Justin J. McShane http://www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com/metrology-and-reporting-uncertainty/comment-page-1/#comment-816 Justin J. McShane Sun, 15 Aug 2010 22:52:41 +0000 http://www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com/?p=76#comment-816 Thank you. The truth is that all across the United States proper metrological processes are not followed when reporting measures of any sort in the Courtroom. In not reporting in a metrologically responsible way is by definition misleading. As you know, it is called “UM” or uncertainty measurement. Even the great standards of NIST, ISO, Guide 19, GUM, ASLCD/LAB and the ASTM are not the be all end all of true metrology reporting. As to be totally correct one would need to account for the uncertainty in the measurement of not just the quantitative measure <strong>BUT ALSO</strong> in the qualitative measure. An expanded Bayesian based uncertainty budget that accounts fully for Type I and Type II error of both quantitative and qualitative measurements should be the standard in the Courtroom. Anything less than that is the metrological functional equivalent of a wild guess. Thank you. The truth is that all across the United States proper metrological processes are not followed when reporting measures of any sort in the Courtroom. In not reporting in a metrologically responsible way is by definition misleading. As you know, it is called “UM” or uncertainty measurement. Even the great standards of NIST, ISO, Guide 19, GUM, ASLCD/LAB and the ASTM are not the be all end all of true metrology reporting. As to be totally correct one would need to account for the uncertainty in the measurement of not just the quantitative measure BUT ALSO in the qualitative measure. An expanded Bayesian based uncertainty budget that accounts fully for Type I and Type II error of both quantitative and qualitative measurements should be the standard in the Courtroom. Anything less than that is the metrological functional equivalent of a wild guess.

]]> By: Pattern Recognition is it Science or an Art? | The Truth About Forensic Science http://www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com/metrology-and-reporting-uncertainty/comment-page-1/#comment-140 Pattern Recognition is it Science or an Art? | The Truth About Forensic Science Tue, 18 May 2010 10:18:57 +0000 http://www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com/?p=76#comment-140 [...] we identify the sources of uncertainty in our analysis and can we quantify them so as to be able to report the uncertainty of our results in a metrologically responsible [...] […] we identify the sources of uncertainty in our analysis and can we quantify them so as to be able to report the uncertainty of our results in a metrologically responsible […]

]]>