The consequences of understanding expert probability reporting as a decision

Alex Biedermann, Silvia Bozza, Franco Taroni, Colin Aitken

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

In this paper we reiterate that the personalist interpretation of probability is inevitable and as least as informed as any other allegedly more ‘objective’ definition of probability. We also argue that the problem faced by forensic scientists, the reporting on imperfect personal knowledge, in terms of probabilities, can be reconstructed as a decision problem. Tackling this problem through a rigorous decision theoretic analysis provides further argument in support of the view that optimal probability reporting is in terms of single numbers, not intervals.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)80-85
JournalScience and Justice
Volume57
Issue number1
Early online date12 Dec 2016
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2017

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The consequences of understanding expert probability reporting as a decision'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this